JUDGMENT (Oral): - 1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.159 of 2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Wazeerganj, District Lucknow. 2. Short Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of investigating agency in court, is taken on record. 3. Shri Anuj Dayal, Advocate has put in appearance for respondent no. 4. His power of attorney is taken on record. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that civil dispute is already pending. In the First Information Report sale consideration mentioned is Rs.1,25,00000/-(one crore twenty five lacs). It has further been pleaded that in the agreement to sell, only Rs.25,00,000/-(twenty five lacs) was written. Terms of agreement are binding on the complainant. Offence against the petitioners is not made out. 5. We have considered the contention of learned counsel, in context of the pleadings. 6. On going through the photocopy of the original First Information Report, we find that a sum of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Five crore twenty five lacs) has been written. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been referring to the typed copy of the document, which apparently contains an error. 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of investigating agency it has been stated that impugned First Information Report has been registered after conduct of enquiry. The detailed enquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure SCA-1. 8. It has been pointed out that the complainant is a lady. On the pretext that her land is being sold for a sum of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Five crore twenty five lacs), an agreement was drafted. Mischievously, however, sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty five lacs) only was written therein. It is only when the respondent informant received notice that she is required to pay capital gain in the sum of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Seventy lacs), as per the circle rate, she took a copy of the agreement to sell whereupon she found that she had been defrauded. 9. We have considered the issue. Investigation has yet not been concluded. As per the investigating agency there is sufficient evidence available on record to indicate criminal intent on the part of the petitioners to defraud the respondent complainant. We have also taken note of the fact that there is huge difference in Rs.5,25,00000/-(five crore twenty five lacs) and Rs.25,00,000/-. 9. We have considered the issue. Investigation has yet not been concluded. As per the investigating agency there is sufficient evidence available on record to indicate criminal intent on the part of the petitioners to defraud the respondent complainant. We have also taken note of the fact that there is huge difference in Rs.5,25,00000/-(five crore twenty five lacs) and Rs.25,00,000/-. It is the admitted position that sum of Rs. 25,00000/-(twenty five lacs) would be far below than the circle rate amount, considering the location of land. 10. Be that as it may without commenting on the merits of the case, we dismiss this petition as evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits and counter affidavits to record a finding that the petitioners have not committed the offfence. 11. Petition is dismissed.