JUDGMENT A.H. Joshi, J. 1. The Petitioners herein have been named as accused in written F.I.R. lodged by Respondent No. 3 Rohini. It is registered with Kranti Chowk Police Station, Aurangabad, on 14.1.2010 under Crime No. I-18/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 468, 471 and 420, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The story disclosed in the F.I.R. can be briefly narrated as follows:- (a) The complainant Rohini is the wife of deceased Govind Laxman Ladhe, who was an Advocate by profession. He owned a flat, being flat No.37, consisting of two bed rooms, a kitchen etc. in building No. H-3, MHADA Colony, near Baba Petrol Pump, Aurangabad, allotted to him by MHADA. (b) Due to employment as a rector in the hostel, and because of family responsibilities, the complainant used to be out of Aurangabad. (c) She applied for recording her name in MHADA in relation to the flat owned by her husband Govind. (d) On 24.12.2009, at about 2.30 a.m., the petitioners-accused persons thumped the door of the complainant’s flat and threatened her. The complainant, therefore, called the police. However, in the meantime, the accused persons went back. (e) On 25.12.2009, accused persons again came and entered the flat of the complainant forcibly, and since then they have been occupying the flat. (f) The police also did not help the complainant. (g) The accused have made a show, of having paid some money to the complainant’s husband and got some documents executed in favour of petitioner No.5. (h) On the basis of forcible entry in the flat, all accused persons have taken away the documents, clothes, utensils, furniture and other articles from the flat and the complainant has been driven out of the house, barely with clothes on her person. (i) The accused have committed offences due to their acts complained of. 3. For quashing the complaint filed by Respondent No.3, the petitioners have placed reliance on the following background:- (i) Petitioner No.5 has in his favour an agreement for sale executed by deceased Govind Laxman Ladhe in respect of the said flat. (i) The accused have committed offences due to their acts complained of. 3. For quashing the complaint filed by Respondent No.3, the petitioners have placed reliance on the following background:- (i) Petitioner No.5 has in his favour an agreement for sale executed by deceased Govind Laxman Ladhe in respect of the said flat. Petitioner No.5 has paid under agreement of sale to Shri Govind Ladhe by way of advance an amount of ` 5,31,000/-and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of registration, and ` 2,000/-per month for day-today maintenance, and due amount on the date of execution of the sale deed. (ii) Possession of the flat was delivered by Govind Ladhe to petitioner No.5, on the said agreement of sale. (iii) None came forward to nurse Govind, when he was in hospital. (iv) The petitioners had spent for medical expenses of deceased Govind Ladhe, and the petitioner has rendered entire nursing and service to Govind Ladhe, till he died. (v) After death of Govind, the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against complainant Rohini Ladhe. (vi) Complainant Rohini Ladhe knew that such a litigation was in the offing and, therefore, she had filed a caveat. (vii) Apprehending that Respondent No.3-Rohini Ladhe was about to lodge some false case against the petitioners, the petitioner No. 5 had lodged complaint to police on 26.12.2009. (viii) After filing of the criminal case, the petitioners submitted a detailed representation on 22.1.2010 to the Police Sub Inspector, and thereafter to the Commissioner of Police on 22.4.2010, yet police have continued the investigation. 4. The grounds pressed in service through this petition read as follows:- XI. Prima facie, the allegations levelled in the FIR are insufficient to prove / describe the guilt or any unlawful act on the part of the petitioners. XIV. Actual dispute in between the parties is of civil nature, therefore, false and frivolous allegations levelled in F.I.R. involving petitioners, are not sustainable and, therefore, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. Same grounds have been canvassed during oral arguments. Learned Advocate for the petitioners took us through entire paperbook thread-bare, in order to make good, the arguments. 5. Perusal of the documents on record i.e. caveat, interim order, copy of the F.I.R. and representations submitted by the petitioners, leaves no room for doubt to believe that in view of pending suit, the parties are already in civil litigation. Learned Advocate for the petitioners took us through entire paperbook thread-bare, in order to make good, the arguments. 5. Perusal of the documents on record i.e. caveat, interim order, copy of the F.I.R. and representations submitted by the petitioners, leaves no room for doubt to believe that in view of pending suit, the parties are already in civil litigation. 6. The versions contained in the petition and the contents of the agreement for sale indicate that the petitioners have proceeded on an assumption that there are no other family members of deceased Govind Ladhe, to succeed to his property, or for taking his care. The petitioners have changed the stance in the suit filed by present petitioner No.5 Dnyaneshwar himself against Govind Ladhe (since deceased, against Smt. Rohini Ladhe), wherein present Respondent No. 3 is shown to be the wife and legal representative of deceased Govind Ladhe. 7. For enabling the petitioners to get the FIR quashed, they must show that, ex-facie, the description of the allegations or imputations levelled against them does not comprehend the ingredients of the offences with which they are charged. 8. The parties are concurrent on the point that the yardstick with which the FIR is to be tested to find out whether it is to be quashed, is as to what appears prima facie and not of a scrutiny in depth. 9. At this stage, it is not to be seen whether the case would ultimately lead to a conviction. All that is to be seen is, whether there is a ground for registration of crime and for investigation thereof. 10. At this stage, the petitioners are attempting that this court should believe their version alone as the truth, and that the version contained in the narration reflected through complainant Rohini (FIR) is a utter lie and / or unbelievable. 11. On scrutiny, we find that the contents of the complaint submitted by Respondent No. 3 to the police, consist of due and adequate description as to the conduct of the petitioners-accused persons. The narration is sufficient to describe the ingredients of the offences for which the crime has been registered. 12. Therefore, present is not a fit case where the relief of quashing the FIR is available. We, therefore, dismiss the petition and discharge the rule.