JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the FIR No. 65/2013 registered at Police Station Merta City, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B I.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that exfacie even if the FIR impugned is perused, it does not disclose any offence whatsoever. He submits that the simple case of the complainant in the FIR is that the accused executed an agreement to sell the revenue land to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 14 lakhs. He submits that as per the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs to the accused and the balance amount was to be paid later on where after the accused were under the obligation to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. He submits that it is the conduct of the complainant in not making payment of the balance amount, that the transaction fell out. While referring to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandran Ratnaswami. v. K.C. Palanisamy and Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 1952 and the decision rendered by this Court in Navneet Vyas & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2004(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 480 , he contends that the FIR impugned deserves to be quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2/complainant vehemently oppose the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is urged that the title of the land was not free from all encumbrances and yet the accused misrepresented themselves to be the unchallenged owners of the land in question and executed the agreement in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant came to know that the accused intended to transfer the land to somebody else, an application for injunction under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was filed before the S.D.O. Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out the reply filed by the petitioners to the said application and in particular para 5 thereof wherein the accused petitioners even denied to have executed the agreement in question. He thus submits that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant and nothing beyond that. He thus submits that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant and nothing beyond that. He thus urges that the FIR impugned does not deserve to be quashed by exercising the inherent powers of this Court. 5. Heard and considered the rival arguments and perused the impugned FIR as well as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the other material available on the record. 6. It is not in dispute that the complainant's specific case is regarding the accused having posed themselves to be the unchallenged owners of the property by virtue of they being the partners of the firm M/s. Charbhuja Lime & Chemical Industries. The agreement which has been filed along with the petition bears the signatures of all the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners Suraj Devi, Vineeta & Vinu and Rajni are the legal representatives of Ashok Kumar, who was one of the partners of the said firm. Though it is true that the agreement refers to the fact that these petitioners are reported to have filed an application for being inducted in the firm but the fact remains that when the agreement was executed, the petitioners were not the partners of the firm and despite that they received the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs from the complainant. This conduct by itself would not have been wholly inculpatory but when the suit was filed by the complainant under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the accused totally denied the execution of the agreement and disowned the same. If at all the petitioners' case was that the agreement was not genuine, then the appropriate action for them was to have initiated prosecution of the complainant, which admittedly has not been done. The fact that after executing the agreement and taking money from the complainant, the accused repelled the attempt of the complainant to have the sale registered and the fact that the complainant's allegation is that the accused have entered into another transaction in relation to the same land as well as the fact that the accused have denied the execution of the agreement in their reply to the application under Section 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, are in the opinion of this Court sufficient reasons for not interfering in the FIR impugned by exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. The judgments which have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are distinguishable on facts. In the case of Chandran Ratnaswami (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the fact that the disputes in relation whereto the case has been filed, had been settled by the company court and then the FIR was filed. Thus, this judgment is of no avail to the petitioners. Likewise the case of Navneet Vyas (supra) also is of no help to the petitioners. In this case, the police gave a final report finding the case to be of civil nature and thereafter, the learned Magistrate proceeded to take cognizance. In those circumstances, the Court felt inclined to quash the proceedings. 8. The present is not such a case. Here the investigation is yet continuing and the petitioners are yet at liberty to raise all their contentions and objections regarding their innocence before the Investigating Officer. It is expected that the Investigating Officer would take the defence objections into account before filing the result of the investigation.Resultantly, the instant misc. petition, being bereft of any force, is hereby dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******