JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner complainant against the order dated 29.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pali in revision whereby the learned Sessions Judge rejected the revision filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 19.1.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali accepting the final report filed by the police. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali for the offences under Sections 409, 385, 420, 384 read with Section 120B I.P.C. The complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation and an F.I.R. No. 222/2008 was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Pali for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he purchased 11 bighas of agricultural land from Laxminarayan and Chhogalal in Khasra No. 786/3 of Chak No. 1 in his wife's name Smt. Kaushalya. The mutation of the land was entered in Smt.Kaushlaya Devi's favour on 6.10.1978. As the urban population increased and the city expanded, the land became adjacent to the Pali town. The complainant accordingly sub divided the land into 54 plots ad-measuring 40x 60 ft. each in the year 1992. The sub division map was prepared by Mohd. Rafiq. 35 plots were sold to various persons through agreements prepared by the complainant in their favour after receiving the advance money from the purchasers. The possession of the plots was handed over to the respective purchasers. As the land was agricultural land, the conversion thereof to residential property was not possible in a haste and thus the purchasers were separately provided with a special power of attorney along with possession letters for their respective plot. The complainant claimed that the plot no. 54 was agreed to be sold to the respondent no. 2 Smt. Ganga Devi for a consideration of Rs. 4000/-. The agreement in this regard was prepared on 9.4.1992 and along with the agreement, the possession letter and a power of attorney was also handed over to Smt. Ganga Devi on 10.4.1992. The complainant claimed that Ganga Devi and her husband accused no. 1 Panna Ram and her son Praveen accused no. 3, expressed the desire to resale the plot no. 54 in the year 2006. The complainant claimed that Ganga Devi and her husband accused no. 1 Panna Ram and her son Praveen accused no. 3, expressed the desire to resale the plot no. 54 in the year 2006. It was agreed that Smt. Kaushlaya Devi would purchase the plot from Ganga Devi for a consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/-. As per the complainant, the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- was paid to Smt. Ganga Devi and a note was appended by Ganga Devi in this regard on the document on 2.10.2006. The complainant claimed that the note was written by the accused no. 4 Suresh Kumar Bhansali, a person close to the accused no. 1 and 2. As per the complainant, the accused lost all the rights over the plot after executing the document. 3. It was also alleged that all the accused conspired and in order to deprive the complainant and Smt. Kaushalya Devi of the whole 11 bighas of land gave a fraudulent proposal in the year 2006 to the complainant for being permitted to cultivate the land. The complainant alleged that the sale deeds of the plot had not been registered in favour of the purchasers and thus the land was lying vacant. The complainant further claimed that he was influenced by the genuine offer made by the accused and thus, the whole of the land was given in cultivatory possession to the accused Dhanna Ram for sowing summer crops in the year 2006. The complainant alleged that Dhanna Ram sowed wheat crop on the land in October, 2006 and harvested the same in Fabruary, 2007. It was also claimed that Ganga Devi was the Sarpanch of Dhakri at the relevant time and Dhanna Ram was the chief of Arya Veer Dal and thus both were very powerful. The complainant alleged that even after harvesting the crops in the year 2007, the accused did not hand back the vacant possession of the property to the complainant and instead, in order to grab the property got published a public notice in Rajasthan Patrika on 13.5.2007 claiming 23 years undisturbed possession of the property in question. The complainant claimed that he had raised a 5ft. stone boundary wall on the property in the year 1993. The complainant claimed that he had raised a 5ft. stone boundary wall on the property in the year 1993. The accused in order to deprive the complainant of his property affixed a board titled Choudhary Krishi Farm on the gate of his property and also displayed their mobile number on the board. The complainant claimed that he was devastated on coming to know of this act of the accused who started staking a false claim on his property. 15 of the original purchasers pressurised the complainant that the plots had been put into dispute and thus he should reimburse them by paying the market price of the land. The complainant further alleged that he filed a written application against the accused at the Police Station Industrial Area, Pali and the S.H.O. instituted proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against them. It was also stated that on 19.5.2007 the accused Dhanna Ram, Ganga Devi and Praveen sent a legal notice to the complainant's wife Kaushlaya Devi claiming settled possession over the property for 23 years and thereby claiming Khatedari rights over the property in question. As per the complainant, the acts of the accused amounted to offences under Section 406 and 384 of the I.P.C. The complainant further alleged that he requested the accused that they should refrain from their evil design of usurping his land on which the accused demanded that they should be paid a sum of Rs. 20 lacs and then only they would vacate and hand back the land to the complainant. The complainant was not in a position to pay this huge amount to the accused. On sensing the complainant's inability to make the lump sum payment, the accused demanded that sale agreements for nine plots measuring 40x84 ft. should be executed in their favour and thereafter the remaining land would be restored to the complainant. The complainant had no option but to buckle down to the illegal demands of the accused and accordingly nine sale agreements were executed by Kaushalya Devi in favour of the accused by showing their total value to be Rs. 20 lacs on non judicial stamps of Rs. 100/-. It is claimed that the agreements were provided to the accused with the understanding that as and when the amount of Rs. 20 lacs was paid, the original documents would be returned back to the complainant. The complainant thereafter paid Rs. 20 lacs on non judicial stamps of Rs. 100/-. It is claimed that the agreements were provided to the accused with the understanding that as and when the amount of Rs. 20 lacs was paid, the original documents would be returned back to the complainant. The complainant thereafter paid Rs. 5 lacs to the accused on 7.1.2008 and a receipt was appended on the documents on that day. The remaining amount of Rs. 15 lacs was paid to the accused on 9.4.2008. The accused persisted with their pressurising tactics and forced the complainant to execute a registered sale deed of plot no. 84 in favour of Prem Lata w/o Suresh Kumar Bhansali and also forced him to pay an additional amount of Rs. 4.5 lacs to Suresh Kumar Bhansali as a pre condition for returning the property. The complainant alleged that he was left with no option but to execute the registered sale deed as directed by the accused in favour of Prem Lata Bhansali on 3.4.2008. It was also alleged that after he executed the sale deed in favour of Smt. Prem Lata, the accused returned back the possession of the property to him and relinquished their claim on the land for eternity. 4. The Investigating Agency investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that the transactions between the parties were purely of civil nature. It was also found that Dhanna Ram was cultivating the land since 1992. The cultivation continued with the permission of Bhim Raj. Dhanna Ram got a well dug in the property during the period between 1990-1992. The well was utilised for irrigating the crop and for supplying water to tankers. The complainant used to carry on business at Hyderabad. Thus, the undisturbed possession over the property continued to be with Dhanna Ram. In the year 2006 Bhim Raj planned to develop a residential colony by the name of Maruti Nagar on the property and for that purpose he started calling back the papers of the plots which were distributed to various persons in the year 1992. The purchasers who were having possession letters and power of attorney were given offers to return back the papers after taking Rs. 1,10,000/- for each plot. Smt. Ganga was also one of the purchasers who also returned her documents after receiving the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The purchasers who were having possession letters and power of attorney were given offers to return back the papers after taking Rs. 1,10,000/- for each plot. Smt. Ganga was also one of the purchasers who also returned her documents after receiving the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The I.O. also collected the compromise arrived at between the parties on 18.7.2007 as per which, the complainant agreed to sell nine plots to the accused for a consideration of Rs. 20 lacs. The agreement was executed with a condition that the property would be returned back upon Bhim Raj paying Rs. 20 lacs to the accused party within a period of six months. The I.O. found that the agreement was voluntarily written and executed. The I.O. also found that the amount of Rs. 20 lacs which the complainant claimed having paid to the accused was paid in terms of the voluntary agreement recorded between the parties as a consideration for vacating the property. 5. As regards the transaction of the sale of plot to Prem Lata Bhansali, it was found that the complainant received the consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- from Suresh Kumar Bhansali and thereafter, willingly executed the registered sale deed in favour of Prem Lata. Thus, the I.O. concluded that prima facie no offence was made out against the accused and the dispute was primarily of a civil nature. 6. On the final report so being submitted, the complainant filed a protest petition. No evidence was, however, led in support of the protest petition. The learned trial Judge accepted the final report by a well reasoned order dated 19.1.2010. The order passed by the learned trial Judge was challenged in revision which proved unsuccessful. Hence, this misc. petition. 7. Mr. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner complainant vehemently contended that the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Revisional Court committed grave error in accepting the final report and rejecting the protest petition submitted by the complainant. He submits that the accused persons, in order to extort money and in order to cheat the complainant forced him to a situation where he was left with no option but to concede to their illegal demands. He submits that the accused persons, in order to extort money and in order to cheat the complainant forced him to a situation where he was left with no option but to concede to their illegal demands. Learned counsel submits that the accused were given possession of the property in question for one year's cultivation and thereafter instead of handing back the vacant possession, the accused staked claim over the property by publishing a public notice in the news paper and by having their names painted on the gate. Learned counsel thus submits that prima facie ingredients of the offences of cheating as well as extortion are made out in the case and thus the trial court be directed to proceed against the accused for the offences of cheating and extortion. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor supported the orders impugned. 9. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the orders impugned and the record. 10. The first and foremost fact which is material in the case is that neither before the Revisional Court nor before this Court the complainant impleaded the proposed accused as respondents in the matter. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia & Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in 2013(1) RLW SC 94 has held that in the proceedings of such nature suspect/proposed accused is an essential party who has a right to be heard. Thus, the miscellaneous petition filed without impleading the proposed accused as party respondents to the petition is not maintainable. Furthermore, on perusing the orders impugned and the record, it is evident that the whole scenario which unfurls from the case set up by the complainant and the material collected by the police is that the accused Dhanna Ram was in prolonged cultivatory possession of the property. The complainant was carrying on his business at Hyderabad and he tacitly consented the cultivatory possession of the accused. Admittedly, fictitious transactions of sub division and sale of the plots were created by the complainant in the year 1992. Thereafter when the property became proximate to the Pali City and the cost of land escalated, the complainant planned to develop a residential colony on the disputed land. For this purpose, the complainant required vacant possession of the property. Admittedly, fictitious transactions of sub division and sale of the plots were created by the complainant in the year 1992. Thereafter when the property became proximate to the Pali City and the cost of land escalated, the complainant planned to develop a residential colony on the disputed land. For this purpose, the complainant required vacant possession of the property. All the transactions which the complainant claims took place between him and the accused by way of extortion were as a matter of fact executed voluntarily by the complainant in his endeavour to buy back the possession of the property from the accused. Even if the complainant's highest allegation is accepted then too the accused having been given the cultivatory possession of the land in the year 2006 retained the same and laid stake thereupon. If at all the complainant felt that the accused were unjustified in refusing to return back the possession of the property at the end of the agreed period then he could have resorted to legal proceedings for having the accused evicted. The complainant's allegation that all the transactions were carried out under the fear of the threat given by the accused does not hold water. The complainant is an educated businessman, and thus there was no reason for him to yield to the pressure of the accused. He could have resorted to legal proceedings for having the land vacated rather than submitting to the so called illegal demands of the accused. These circumstances as a matter of fact are clearly indicative of the situation that the complainant voluntarily entered into the agreements with the accused for buying back the possession of the land which was being cultivated by the accused for more than 15 years. As the agreements were voluntarily entered into, there arises no question of accused being responsible for the offences of cheating, extortion and conspiracy. Thus, the trial court committed no error in accepting the final report submitted by the police. The revisional Court too has rightly rejected the revision filed on behalf of the petitioner.Accordingly, the miscellaneous petition being bereft of any force is rejected. Record be sent back forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******