JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the F.I.R. No. 99/2008 registered at the Police Station, Kuchaman City, district Nagaur for the offence under Sections 365, 368, 347, 328, 307/34 and 120-B, I.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 Nanda Ram submitted a complaint in the. Court of the learned judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City on 14.5.2009 alleging inter alia that twelve months prior to filing of the F.I.R., the accused Shobha Ram, Arjun Ram, Laxman Singh, Hardeva Ram and Kalu Ram came to his house with a prior planning. He alleged that he was forcibly abducted, boarded on a vehicle and taken to the house of one Kalu Ram of village Mithadi, where he was given some sedatives in food, due to which he lost his memory and became weak. He alleged that when his sons came to know about this act, they came to take him back from Kalil Ram's house. Kalu Ram allegedly repelled his sons off after abusing them. The complainant further alleged that he was thereafter taken to the house of accused Laxman Singh again after being administered a sedative. It is alleged that when he was at the house of accused Laxman Singh, his son-in-law and brother-in-law came to take him, but again they were not permitted to enter into the house and were turned out. 3. The complainant further alleged that he was taken to the Tehsil Office at Kuchaman on 26.6.2007 and was made to sign some documents etc. and thereby the accused persons managed to have a part of his agricultural land transferred in their name by a fraudulent registered sale deed without making the payment of the price to him. The complainant further alleged that on 1.5.2008, the accused pressurised him further and told him that he would have to execute the registry of the remaining land in their favour. It is stated that when the complainant refused to accede to this illegal demand of the accused, the accused started conspiring that the complainant should be done away with. He alleged that on a particular morning he got-up and clandestinely went out the house and managed to reach his daughter's house at village Nawa and then he called his sons. Thereafter he was brought to the Court, where the complaint was filed. He alleged that on a particular morning he got-up and clandestinely went out the house and managed to reach his daughter's house at village Nawa and then he called his sons. Thereafter he was brought to the Court, where the complaint was filed. The complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Kuchaman City for investigation under Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code, where F.I.R. No. 99/2008 was registered and the investigation ensued. 4. Now the instant miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners accused seeking quashing of the above-mentioned F.I.R. registered against them. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, seeking quashing of the F.I.R. impugned, submits that the whole story, as stated by the complainant in the F.I.R., the complainant Nanda Ram filed F.I.R. No. 94/2007 at the Police Station,. Kuchaman City on 6.5.2007. In the said F.I.R, the allegation made by the complainant Nanda Ram was that various persons, including his sons etc., forcibly abducted him and made him to execute certain documents under pressure for the purpose of usurping his land/property. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No.2 voluntarily executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioner No. 1 by appearing before the Sub Registrar, Kuchaman City on 2.7.2007. He submits that complainant's family members filed a revenue suit in the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawa seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner Hardeva Ram by the respondent No. 2 Nanda Ram. He submits that the respondent No. 2 Nanda Ram filed a reply to the said revenue suit on 23.10.2007 and in the reply he has admitted that he sold his self-acquired property to the petitioner No. 1 on 2.7.2007 and that his sons and grand-sons have no right, interest or title in the said property. Learned counsel submits that in view of the specific reply filed by the respondent No. 2 Nanda Ram before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawa ratifying the sale made in favour of the petitioner No. 1, the subsequent story set-up in the impugned F.I.R, which has been filed after nearly seven months of filing of the said reply, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel submits that in view of the specific reply filed by the respondent No. 2 Nanda Ram before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nawa ratifying the sale made in favour of the petitioner No. 1, the subsequent story set-up in the impugned F.I.R, which has been filed after nearly seven months of filing of the said reply, cannot be accepted. Learned counsel further contends that as a matter of fact, the F.I.R. has been stage-managed by the respondent No. 2's family members with the objective of depriving the petitioner No. 1 of the land which he had purchased though a registered sale deed after making payment of consideration. It is contended that as long as the registered sale deed is not disputed, the very substratum of the F.I.R. cannot hold good. He submits that the theories, as propounded in the F.I.R. and the reply submitted in the revenue suit, are totally divergent and both cannot co-exist. Learned counsel further submits that the story, as put forward by the complainant in the F.I.R., is absolutely concocted. He submits that the complainant was hounded by his own sons for giving up his property and he himself filed an F.I.R. No. 94/2007 though a complaint regarding his abduction and extortion against various persons including his sons. The said complaint was filed in the month of April 2007. He submits that at that stage, the complainant was nowhere in the contact of the petitioners, thus it is argued that the very fact that the complainant was apprehending harm from his own sons, is sufficient to conclude that the present F.I.R. is nothing but a piece of concoction create under the pressure of the complainant's relatives. It is submitted that the reply, which was filed by the respondent No. 2 on 23.10.2007 admitting a valid sale, still holds good and, therefore, the F.I.R. impugned deserves to be quashed. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.2 and the Public Prosecutor have opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant, who is an old man, has been pressurised and forced to sign the documents after being sedated; thus the F.I.R. impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the investigation files of F.I.Rs. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant, who is an old man, has been pressurised and forced to sign the documents after being sedated; thus the F.I.R. impugned does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the investigation files of F.I.Rs. No. 94/2008 and 95/2008, it is manifest that the complainant's case that he was forced to sign certain documents after being abducted and put under the effect of sedative, cannot be accepted on its face value. The theory of prosecution is that the complainant was abducted from his house in the month of June, 2007 and at that time his sons and wife were present in the house. It does not stand to reason as to why the complainant's sons did not report the matter to the police if their father had been abducted. Even thereafter the complainant has specifically come with the case that he was detained initially at the house of Kalu Ram and then at the house of Laxman Singh. He has also stated that during his period, his sons, son-in-law and brother-in-law came to these two places for having him released but could not succeed. If this story is having even a grain of truth, then the complainant's sons and his other relatives should have reported the matter to the police promptly. It is apparent that the story put up in the impugned F.I.R. is a just cooked-up story and it does not bear a semblance of truth. It does not stand to reasons that an old man was being illegally detained and his sons and other relatives would keep silent despite being alive to this fact and would not seek the assistance of police for having his release secured. 8. The most substantial and important fact, which is available on record, is the reply filed by Nanda Ram in the revenue suit filed by Bhanzvar Lal & Ors., wherein he has admitted that he voluntarily sold his land to the accused Hardeva Ram. 8. The most substantial and important fact, which is available on record, is the reply filed by Nanda Ram in the revenue suit filed by Bhanzvar Lal & Ors., wherein he has admitted that he voluntarily sold his land to the accused Hardeva Ram. A copy of the reply filed by Nanda Ram in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 92/2007 (Satish v. Nand Ram) filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Parbatsar on 5.12.2007 is also available on the case file and in this reply also, the fact of sale of the land to Hardeva Ram has been admitted by the complainant. 9. A copy of an order dated 16.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Parbatsar filed by the three daughters of the complainant seeking temporary injunction against he purchaser Hardeva Ram is available on the tile. As per the tenor of the order, the learned Additional District Judge has arrived to a prima facie conclusion that Nanda Ram sold his land by a valid sale deed to Hardeva Ram. In view of the said finding, it is not possible to accept the allegations made in the F.I.R. that the complainant was first abducted and then he was forced to execute the registered sale deed in favour of Hardeva Ram. If at all the story of alleged abduction, sedation and the subsequent fraudulent sale deed was having even an iota of truth, then Nanda Ram could have taken steps to amend reply in the civil Court and should have retracted from the averments made in the earlier reply. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the story of the complainant in his complaint is not at all palatable. The F.I.R. and all the subsequent allegations are patently false and have been initiated for oblique motives and main fide on the face of the record. The case of the petitioners stands squarely covered by the (7)th Clause of the Guidelines Lald down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held as below. The case of the petitioners stands squarely covered by the (7)th Clause of the Guidelines Lald down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held as below. " In the following categories of cases, the High Court may in exercise of powers under Article 226 or under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code may interfere in proceedings relating to cognizanable offences either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, power should be exercised sparingly and that too in the rarest of rare cases. ...... (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the proceedings of F.I.R. No. 99/2008 filed at the instance of the complainant-respondent No. 2 do not inspire confidence and the same, in the opinion of this Court, clearly amount to an abuse of process of the.Court. Thus, in order to secure the ends of justice and to prevent the abuse of the process of criminal law, this Court while exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code, has no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the F.I.R. impugned and all the subsequent proceedings thereupon, deserve to be quashed and are quashed hereby. The miscellaneous petition is allowed accordingly. The stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******