JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and Sri Nitin Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. All these three applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are being decided by this Court by a common order as the prayer made in the aforesaid applications by the applicants is for quashing the proceedings of case No. 14116 of 2012 as well as order dated 23.7.2012 passed by C.J.M., Ghaziabad in the aforesaid case arising out of case crime No. 1023 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Ghaziabad. 3. The prosecution story as alleged in the First Information Report is that opposite party No. 2 Sri Harprit Singh is Marketing Executive of M/s. V.X.L. Realtors Private Limited which runs the business of real estate through him and also has its working site at G.H.-3, Sector 4-C, Vasundhara. It is alleged that applicant No. 2, Bharat Bhushan Sharma, who is Director of M/s. B.K. Buildcon Private Limited alongwith other Directors namely, applicant No. 1 Smt. Kamlesh Sharma, Dinesh Kumar having their registered office 50 B.M., Compound, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad through agent Sanjay Kohli, r/o 171, 2nd Floor, Main Road, Vigyan Bhawan, Delhi approached to the office of opposite party No. 2 at G.H.-3, Sector 4-C, Vasundhara for sale of some plots in the year 2007, bearing Khasra No. 1899, 1900, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1921 and 1922 having total area of 34181 Sq. Yards out of which opposite party No. 2 expressed its desire to purchase 30,000 Sq. Yards land situate at National Highway-24 for a sum of Rs. 10 crores and for which an agreement to sale was also executed between them on 12.1.2007 at Vasundhara office and said agreement to sale was valid upto 26.6.2007. It was agreed between the parties that after the said agreement Rs. 4 crores would be given by the opposite party No. 2. Further, another an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on 28.9.2007 for purchase of the said land as the accused persons have raised price of the said plots and demanded Rs. 12,40,00,000/- to which he agreed. 4 crores would be given by the opposite party No. 2. Further, another an agreement to sale was executed between the parties on 28.9.2007 for purchase of the said land as the accused persons have raised price of the said plots and demanded Rs. 12,40,00,000/- to which he agreed. By the said agreement, it was further agreed that the sale-deed would be executed of the plots by 28.2.2008 between the parties for which opposite party No. 2 gave Rs. 5,47,75,000/- to them. In the said agreement, it was mentioned that the plots were free from all encumbrances. Two sale-deeds were also executed with respect to the plots in question by the parties on 16.10.2007 and 13.11.2007. In December 2007, the opposite party No. 2 seeing the activities of National Highway Authority came to know that accused persons who were Directors of M/s. B.K. Buildcon Private Limited has cheated him as the plots in question have already been acquired by National Highway Authority of which accused persons had prior information. The opposite party No. 2 further came to know for the first time that a notification has also been issued by the Government for acquiring the said plots on 30.11.2006 and 7.2.2008. It was further alleged that accused persons have cheated knowing the fact that the plots in question have already been acquired by the National Highway Authority and had concealed the said fact and had executed the agreement to sale and two sale-deeds by causing wrongful loss to the opposite party No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 5, 47, 75,000/-. 4. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicants by opposite party No. 2 on 8.5.2010 at case crime No. 1023 of 2010, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad. 5. It appears from the record that after investigation, final report was submitted by the police being F.R. No. 1057 of 2010 dated 26.7.2010 but the opposite party No. 2 did not file any protest petition against the said final report. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Circle Officer, IV, Ghaziabad on 28.5.2012 for reinvestigation of case, who passed an order for further investigation on 28.5.2012. The opposite party No. 2 moved an application before the Circle Officer, IV, Ghaziabad on 28.5.2012 for reinvestigation of case, who passed an order for further investigation on 28.5.2012. Under the directions of Circle Officer, IV, Ghaziabad, I.O., Jawahar Lal Tomar, Sub Inspector filed an application before the Court concerned on 21.6.2012 upon which learned Magistrate concerned passed an order dated 3.7.2012 permitting the police to conduct further investigation. During further investigation, I.O. recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of opposite party No. 2 Harprit Singh on 14.7.2012, Prabhujeet Singh on 20.7.2012 and statement of R.K. Jha on 21.7.2012 respectively. On the basis of the aforesaid statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the applicants in the present case on 21.7.2012 upon which learned Magistrate concerned, who vide order dated 23.7.2012 took the cognizance of the offences and summoned the applicants. Hence, the present petition is filed challenging the same and the proceedings. 6. It has been contended by Sri Aoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the applicants that when the agreement to sale dated 12.1.2007, supplementary agreement dated 28.9.2007 and further two sale-deeds which were executed on 16.10.2007 and 13.11.2007 between the parties, none of the plots have been acquired by National Highway Authority and same were acquired only on 7.2.2008, hence, the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as in the statements of the opposite party No. 2, on the basis of which charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants no offence is made out against the applicants. He further urged that after the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of The National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1956) was published on 7.2.2008 proposing to acquire certain lands, the opposite party No. 2 had filed statutory objection under sub-section 1 of Section 3-C, Act of 1956 on 20.3.2008 before the competent authority/Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ghaziabad claiming therein that opposite party No. 2 is the rightful owner of plots in question and is also entitled for compensation from the Central Government for acquiring of the said plots by the National Highways Authority. He pointed out that opposite party No. 2 has also filed a suit for money decree on 23.4.2010. He pointed out that opposite party No. 2 has also filed a suit for money decree on 23.4.2010. The prayers of the suit were subsequently amended wherein it was prayed by the opposite party No. 2 that the applicants, Company M/s. B.K. Buildcon Private Limited be restrained from receiving compensation of the land in the suit. He argued that the applicants who are Managing Director and Directors of M/s. B.K. Buildcon Private Limited have not cheated the opposite party No. 2. Moreover, there is neither allegation mentioned in the F.I.R. nor any material collected during investigation that any document has been forged by the applicants. Hence, no offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. is made out against the applicants. 7. He submitted that after investigation, when final report was submitted in the case by the police, opposite party No. 2 instead filing a protest petition, has managed the things and got an order passed by Circle Officer, IV, Ghaziabad for further investigation and the application which was moved by the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation before the Magistrate concerned the learned Magistrate in a most mechanical manner passed the order dated 23.7.2012 permitting the police to conduct further investigation. He further submits that applicants have challenged the F.I.R. of the case before this Court by means of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8709 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 24.5.2010 stayed the arrest of the applicants. The writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 22.2.2011 giving liberty to the opposite party No. 2 to raise his grievances, if any, before the competent Court by means of filing protest petition. Opposite party No. 2 got the order of further investigation from Circle Officer, IV, Ghaziabad and got recorded the statements of three witnesses i.e. opposite party No. 2 and two other persons namely Prabhujeet Singh and R.K. Jha to create a case against the applicants though the said statements were recorded during subsequent investigation who have stated that National Highway Authority issued notification dated 2.8.2006 under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A the Act of 1956 which intent to acquire Khasra No. 1922 only, situate at village Dasana, District Ghaziabad but subsequently a notification was also issued on 30.11.2006, under sub-section (1) of Section 3-D the Act of 1956 wherein the said plot was also not acquired by the National Highway Authority. Thus, even the said statements of witnesses is taken into account then no offence is made out against the applicants. The order taking cognizance by the Magistrate and the proceedings are liable to be quashed in this case. 8. On the other hand, per contra, Sri Atul Mehra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance and has submitted that the applicants have cheated the opposite party No. 2 causing financial loss to him. The accused persons have deliberately concealed the fact at the time of execution of agreement dated 12.1.2007 by which they have agreed to sale the disputed plots with its respective areas situate at village Dasana, District Ghaziabad. He further submits that out of eight plots, plot No. 1922 had already been intended to be acquired by the National Highway Authority vide notification dated 2.8.2006. He submits that subsequently at the time of execution of supplementary agreement dated 28.9.2007 by which certain terms and conditions were modified including the payment schedule and the money of land which was enhanced from Rs. 10 crores to Rs. 12.50 crores. Applicants have concealed the pendency of suit No. 453 of 2007 filed by one Nafeesa against M/s. B.K. Buildcon Private Limited and others in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), II, Ghaziabad. It was pointed out that in the month of October 2007, as per the terms and conditions of the supplementary agreement to sale/memorandum understanding, 6000 Sq. Yards of land was transferred by executing a registered sale-deed dated 16.10.2007 in favour of M/s. V.X.L. Private Limited. The said land is having khasra No. 1910 and 1921. On 13.11.2007, the second sale-deed was executed pertaining to khasra No. 1909, area 3925 Sq. Yards, by this time Rs. 1 crores has been paid on 16.10.2007 and Rs. 4, 47, 75,000/- has been paid in cash and by cheque. The total amount of Rs. 5, 47,75,000/- has been paid by the Company of opposite party No. 2 to the applicants. Yards, by this time Rs. 1 crores has been paid on 16.10.2007 and Rs. 4, 47, 75,000/- has been paid in cash and by cheque. The total amount of Rs. 5, 47,75,000/- has been paid by the Company of opposite party No. 2 to the applicants. He submitted that the intention of acquisition of plot No. 1922 through notification dated 2.8.2006 as well as at the time of execution of supplementary agreement dated 28.9.2007 and pendency of suit No. 453 of 2007 was concealed by the accused persons and in this way, the charge has been levelled for cheating the opposite party No. 2 is fully established on the face of documentary evidence. Hence, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed by this Court. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The documents which are admitted to the parties and are part of record are being mentioned herein below : (i) Agreement to sale dated 12.1.2007 executed between the parties. (ii) Supplementary agreement to sale dated 28.9.2007 executed between the parties. (iii) Two sale-deeds dated 16.10.2007 and 13.11.2007 executed between the parties. (iv) Notification dated 2.8.2006 under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of The National Highways Act, 1956 intent to acquire plot No. 1922. (v) Notification dated 30.11.2006 under sub-section (1) of Section 3- D of The National Highways Act,1956 issued where none of the disputed plots were acquired by the National Highway Authority. (vi) Notification dated 7.2.2008 under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of The National Highways Act, 1956 issued for acquiring of all the disputed plots by the National Highway Authority. 10. It is admitted to the parties that the agreement to sale dated 12.1.2007, supplementary agreement dated 28.9.2007 and two sale-deeds dated 16.10.2007 and 13.11.2007 were executed by the parties at a regular intervals and Rs. 5,47,75,000/- was paid by the Company of opposite party No. 2 to the applicants. 11. 10. It is admitted to the parties that the agreement to sale dated 12.1.2007, supplementary agreement dated 28.9.2007 and two sale-deeds dated 16.10.2007 and 13.11.2007 were executed by the parties at a regular intervals and Rs. 5,47,75,000/- was paid by the Company of opposite party No. 2 to the applicants. 11. From perusal of notification dated 2.8.2006 which is part of the record shows that it was published with intent to acquire the plot No. 1922 only out of the eight plots in question by National Highway Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 3-A the Act of 1956 but it is noteworthy that by notification dated 30.11.2006 which makes reference of notification dated 2.8.2006 shows that none of the disputed plots including plot No. 1922 was acquired by the National Highway Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 3-D the Act of 1956 till the execution of the two agreements to sale and two sale-deeds executed between the parties and it was only on 7.2.2008, all the plots in question were notified with intent to acquire the same by National Highway Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 3-A the Act of 1956. The opposite party No. 2 had already lay its claim being a rightful owner by filing objection before the competent authority for receiving compensation in lieu of the disputed plots which were proposed to be acquired by National Highway Authority and said application is stated to be pending before the said Authority. Moreover, a suit for money decree has also been filed by opposite party No. 2 against the applicants praying therein to restrain them to receive any compensation with respect to plots in question. So far as the concealment of suit No. 453 of 2007 is concerned, the same has already been dismissed by the competent Court, hence, it hardly has any significance in dealing with the present issue between the parties. 12. So far as the concealment of suit No. 453 of 2007 is concerned, the same has already been dismissed by the competent Court, hence, it hardly has any significance in dealing with the present issue between the parties. 12. The Company of opposite party No. 2 has failed to demonstrate before this Court by any documentary evidence referred above which is admitted to him and is on record that the plots in question which were sold to the opposite party No. 2 by the applicants at the date and time of the execution of two agreements to sale and sale-deeds executed between the parties were ever acquired by National Highway Authority and the intent to acquire the said plots have been published in the notification dated 7.2.2008, hence, the allegations that applicants have cheated the Company of opposite party No. 2 and have caused wrongful loss to them to the tune of Rs. 5,47,75,000/- is wholly unfounded. Moreover, there also appears to be no forgery committed by the applicants of any of the documents. 13. From perusal of entire material on record, no offence is disclosed against the applicants thus, the impugned order dated 23.7.2012 passed by the Court below as well as the proceedings of the aforesaid case against the applicants is hereby quashed. 14. The applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stand allowed. ———————