JUDGMENT:- Admitted. Heard finally by consent. Heard learned counsel Mr. B.P. Bhatt, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. M.G. Sarda, learned counsel for non-applicant no. 1 and Mr. Nitin Rode, learned Addl. P.P. for non-applicant no.2-State. 2. The applicants are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 423 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint made by the respondent no.1. 3. The respondent no. 1 had filed a private complaint before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur against the applicants and two others, namely, Raju Thakre (accused No.3) and Prakash Gawande (accused No.4). It is the case of respondent no. 1 that an agreement in respect of sale of property situated at Plot No. 98-B, Khasra No. 24, City Survey No. 40 admeasuring 1440 sq. ft. was entered into by the accused no.3-Raju Thakre on behalf of the applicants. The respondent no.1 had parted with an amount of Rs. 45,500/- by way of part payment towards the purchase of said property. The said amount has been allegedly received by accused no. 3-Raju Thakre and accused no.4 -Prakash Gawande. The sale deed has not been executed. Therefore, the complaint has been filed by the respondent no.1. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel Mr. Bhatt that the applicants had nothing to do with the so called agreement between original accused no.3 and the respondent no. 1 and that the applicants had not received any sum from respondent no. 1 directly or through the original accused nos. 3 and 4. 5. It is an admitted position that a Civil Suit was filed by respondent no. 1 against the applicant no.1 - Sonali. The Suit has been dismissed and the Appeal filed by the respondent no.1 is pending. It is further an admitted position that the original accused nos. 3 and 4 were examined as witnesses during trial of the said Civil Suit. The applicants more particularly, the applicant no.1, has not taken any action against original accused nos. 3 and 4 for the alleged agreement stated to be signed on behalf of the applicant no.1. Learned counsel Mr. Bhatt has submitted that inaction on the part of applicants, by itself, will not create a prima facie case against the applicants for the offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, there is no direct evidence that either the applicant no. Learned counsel Mr. Bhatt has submitted that inaction on the part of applicants, by itself, will not create a prima facie case against the applicants for the offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code. No doubt, there is no direct evidence that either the applicant no. 1 or applicant no.2 had accepted money from the respondent no.1. However, there are strong circumstances to indicate that the applicant nos.1 and 2 were hand-in-gloves with the original accused nos. 3 and 4. 6. The learned Magistrate has rightly issued the process and learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the Revision Application. I do not find any merit in the present Criminal Application u/s. 482 of the Cr.P.C. The Application stands dismissed. Ad-interim order, if any, stands vacated. Application dismissed.