JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-accused has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 202/2015 registered at PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) for the offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-accused has preferred this misc. petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No. 202/2015 registered at PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) for the offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 complainant had lodged a report before SHO, PS Sodala, Jaipur (South) which reads as under:- " fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ us Jherh t;k] mez yxHkx 60 o"kZ] /keZiRuh LoxhZ; Jh ewyki mQZ ewypan iq= Jh t;k Hkkj}kt] tkfr&czkge.k] fuoklh&xzke ekSBwdk] rglhy&ckulwj] ftyk&vyoj] jktLFkku ls mldh d'f"k tks fd xzke ekSBqdk iVokj gYdk ekSBqdk Hkw0v0fu0 {ks=&gkthiqj] rglhy&ckulwj] ftyk&vyoj esa d'f"k Hkwfe ftlds [kkrk uEcj 274 u;k 121 iqjkuk esa fLFkr [kljk uEcj 572 jdck 0-10 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 573 jdck 0-04 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 575 jdck 0-04 gsDVs;j] [kljk 576 jdck 0-38 gsDVs;j] [kljk 577 jdck 1-12 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 578 jdck 0-01 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 579 jdck 0-72 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 580 jdck 0-62 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 653 jdck 0-22 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 655 jdck 0-19 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 742 jdck 0-47 gsDVs;j dqy fdrk 11 dqy jdck 3-91 gsDVs;j esa 1@4 fgLlk] [kkrk la[;k u;k 451 iqjkuk 121 esa [kljk uEcj 656 jdck 0-81 gsDVs;j dqy fdrk 1 dqy jdck 0-81 gsDVs;j esa fgLlk 1@4 nj fgLlk 17@64 gS] ,oa xzke&Qrsgiqj] iVokj gYdk ekSBqdk] Hkw0v0fu0 {ks= gkthiqj] rglhy&ckulwj] ftyk&vyoj] jktLFkku esa fLFkr d'f"k Hkwfe ftldk [kkrk uEcj u;k 164 iqjkuk 159 esa [kljk uEcj 35 jdck 0-01 gsDVs;j] [kljk uEcj 36 jdck 0-75 gsDVs;j dqy fdrk 2 dqy jdck 0-76 gsDVs;j esa fgLlk 1@6 gSA ;g fd mDr Hkwfe esa Jherh t;k ds fgLls dh laiw.kZ Hkwfe dks izkFkhZ us fnukad 17-9-2014 dks dz; fd;k Fkk ftldk bdjkjukek uksVsjh ifCyd esa ;gk 17-9-2014 dks izekf.kr fd;k gqvk gSA mDr Hkwfe ds fodz; ls lacaf/kr nksuksa i{kksa esa ysunsu o okrkZyki lksMkyk ;kno isV~ksy iai ds ikl ;kno <+kck esa gqbZ Fkh rFkk lkbZ isVs dh jde] pSd vkfn blh LFkku ij fn;s x;s Fks vkSj bdjkjukek t;iqj esa fy[kk x;k FkkA ;g fd izkFkhZ us mijksDr d'f"k Hkwfe esa Jherh t;k ds lEiw.kZ fgLls dh Hkwfe dks dqy :i;ksa 24]00]000@& v{kjs pkSchl yk[k :i;s esa dz; fd;k ftlds lkbZ isVs izkFkhZ us fnukad 17-9-2014 dks :i;s 11]000@& v{kjs X;kjg gtkj :i;s uxn o fnukad 20-9-2014 dks :i;s 1]00]000@& v{kjs ,d yk[k :i;s tfj;s pSd la[;k 022119 lsUV~y cSad vkWQ bf.M;k 'kk[kk cM+ t;iqj ls Hkqxrku Jherh t;k dks dj fn;k Fkk rFkk 'ks"k jkf'k dk Hkqxrku bdjkj ukek dh fnukad ls 15 fnol ds vanj dj jftLVjh izkFkhZ ds uke djokus dk djkj fd;k Fkk ijUrq ,d lIrkg ckn tc izkFkhZ us mDr Jherh t;k dks jftLVjh djokus ds fy;s dgk rks Jherh t;k us dgk fd gekjs ifjokj esa vkil esa mDr Hkwfe ij LVs ( vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ) vk x;k gS tks gekjh vkilh lgefr ls dqN gh fnu esa gV tk;sxk fQj vkids uke jftLVjh djok nsaxsA izkFkhZ us tc Hkh Jherh t;k ls lEidZ djrk rks ckj&ckj LVs tYnh gh gV tk;sxk ;g dgrs Vky&eVksy dj nsrhA izkFkhZ dks 'kadk gqbZ rks irk fd;k fd fdlh us dgk gS fd LVs rks dc dk gh gV x;k gS vkSj mDr Hkwfe dk rks fodz; ukekarj.k Hkh [kqy x;k gS blls ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd Jheku tks izkFkhZ ds lkFk Jherh t;k us /kks[kk/kM+h dh gS vr% Jhekuth ls fuosnu gS fd mDr Jherh t;k ds f[kykQ fjiksVZ ntZ dj izkFkhZ dks U;k; fnykus dh d'ik djsaA " 3. On the above said report, FIR No. 202/2015 u/s 420 & 406 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. 4. Mr. Bhawani Singh, ASI, PS Sodala is present in person and submitted factual report of the matter through Mr. N.S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor which is taken on record. 5. As per factual report, offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC is made out against the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per agreement, 25 days' time limit was fixed for payment of remaining sale amount. The respondent no. 2 complainant failed to make payment of remaining sale amount, therefore, said agreement has automatically stood cancelled. The petitioner has already issued notice to respondent no. 2 and even after notice, respondent no. 2 failed to pay the remaining sale amount, therefore, dispute is only of civil nature. No offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out. As such FIR and continuing of investigation, in the said FIR is abuse of process of law. Therefore, same may be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per agreement there is no condition that if the payment is not made in time the agreement shall be treated as cancelled. He submits that without cancellation of agreement, petitioner has sold out the disputed land to other persons against lucrative amount. Therefore, prima facie offence u/s 420 & 406 IPC is made out, therefore, this misc. petition may be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 9. In the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335] Hon'ble Supreme Court framed seven grounds for quashing the FIR which are as under:- 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 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 cognisable 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 un-controverted 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 cognisable offence but constitute only a non-cognisable 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." 10. In the case in hand, there are serious allegations against the present petitioner that after receiving part payment of sale amount i.e. Rs. 1,11,000/- against Rs. 24 lacs petitioner sold out the same property to other persons and the allegations are found proved during investigation, therefore, none of the above ground exists for quashing the FIR. Hence, this misc. petition stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******