JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing the FIR No.208/2014 dated 02.05.2014 pertaining to Police Station, Udaimandir, District Jodhpur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainants-respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur, inter alia, alleging therein that the petitioners are owning a residential house No.56 situated at Dadhimati Nagar, Bhadwasia, Jodhpur, and on 20.09.2013, they entered into an agreement to sell the said house for a consideration of Rs. 71,00,000/- with the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioners have asked them that the house is mortgaged with the bank and after getting it released from the bank and after obtaining NOC, the sale-deed would be executed. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have assured them from time to time that soon they would get the registered sale-deed executed but on 07.04.2014, they sold their house to one Smt. Rajni Bohra wife of Kishan Gopal Bohra and Shyamsunder Bohra son of Amar Das Bohra. It is alleged that when the complainants came to know about the transaction, they obtained a certified copy of the registry and approached the petitioners for returning Rs. 25,00,000/-, which they had paid as advance, however, the petitioners have refused to repay the said advanced amount and committed the offence under sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC. 3. The above mentioned complaint filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 was forwarded by the Court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the police, which has registered the impugned FIR against the petitioners and other co-accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that from bare perusal of the FIR, the ingredients for commission of offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC are not made out and, therefore, the FIR in question is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Hridaya Rangan PD. Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Appeal (crl.) 313-314/2000, decided on 31.03.2000) ; S.N.Palanitkar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2960 ; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr. (Appeal (crl.) 632/2006, decided on 11.05.2006 ); Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Appeal (crl.) 313-314/2000, decided on 31.03.2000) ; S.N.Palanitkar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2960 ; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr. (Appeal (crl.) 632/2006, decided on 11.05.2006 ); Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., 2008(1) WLC (SC) Cr.34 ; Dalip Kaur & Ors. v. Jagnar Singh & Anr., (Criminal Appeal No.1135/2009, decided on 07.07.2009 ; M.N.Ojha & Ors. v. Alok Kumar Srivastav & Anr. (Criminal Appeal no.1582/2009, decided on 21.08.2009 ); Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No.2069/2012, decided on 14.12.2012 ). The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on decision of this Court as well as of other High Courts rendered in Pramod Kumar Chhaparwal & anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.422/2006, decided on 17.08.2011 ); Wolfgang Hatz & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.418/2013, decided on 14.12.2013 ); Late Jangali Roy v. State of Bihar & Anr. (Cr.Misc.No.5359/2012, decided on 11.01.2013 ) and Bal Krishan Garodia v. State of Haryana & Anr. (Cr.Misc.M No.28624/2011, decided on 22.04.2013 ). While placing reliance on the above referred judgments, counsel for the petitioners has argued that from bare perusal of the impugned FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC because the petitioners have no intention to cheat the respondents since the beginning of entering into the agreement with them. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that from bare perusal of the FIR, the ingredients of offence punishable under sections 406, 420 120-B IPC are clearly made out, therefore, no interference is made out. It is argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the investigation in the matter is in progress and after investigation, it can only be concluded that at the time of entering into an agreement with the complainant, the petitioners were having an intention of cheating or not. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have no intention to cheat the complainants from the beginning. On the strength of the above arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR. 8. At this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have no intention to cheat the complainants from the beginning. On the strength of the above arguments, the learned Public Prosecutor prays for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FIR. 8. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has examined the powers of the High Court of quashing a First Information Report lodged in any police station while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has held as under:- "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 9. In a later decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj (Mrs) & Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill & Anr., 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059 has reiterated the above principle. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled in the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it cannot be concluded whether the petitioners were having no intention of cheating the complainants at the time of entering into the compromise with them. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled in the FIR, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage, it cannot be concluded whether the petitioners were having no intention of cheating the complainants at the time of entering into the compromise with them. There is no quarrel about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts in the above referred cases, wherein it is held that in a case, where after taking into consideration the allegations levelled in the FIR, if no case is made out, the High Court can quash the FIR while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.PC, however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various pronouncements has also held that the High Court must exercise its inherent powers for the purpose of quashing the FIR very rarely and not in a routine manner. 11. The factum of the intention of the petitioners of cheating the complainants at the time of entering into the agreement can only be established after investigation and at this stage, it cannot be concluded that the petitioners have no intention to cheat the complainants from the beginning. When the investigation is in progress, this is not an appropriate stage to interfere with the impugned FIR.Hence, no case for interference is made out. The instant criminal misc. petition is, therefore, dismissed.Stay petition also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******