ORDER : 1. Though all the respondents have been served, nobody has put in appearance. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Affidavit filed by the appellants is taken on record. 3. Leave granted. 4. The appellants are facing trial in charge-sheet No.123/2015 dated 29.12.2015 in case No.112/2015 filed under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as charge-sheet No.124/2015 dated 29.12.2015 in case No.113/2015 filed under Sections 420, 468, 471 & 506 IPC. Thus, both the charge-sheets are under the same provisions and based on identical allegations. The appellants filed a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of these charge-sheets. The case set up by the appellants was that they had entered into a sale deed dated 24.02.2005 with respondent No.4. As per the sale deed respondent No.4 had agreed to sell the scheduled property consisting of 5 shops to the appellants. It was also stated that the appellants were in possession of these shops since 1990 and the possession was given by respondent No.4. The appellants even carried out construction on these shops and the cost of construction was to be adjusted against rent that was payable. As per the appellants, this sale deed could not be registered due to the dilatory tactics adopted by respondent No.4. It was also stated that respondent No.4 came to these shops on 18.09.2007 with one Rakesh Kumar and two others and tried to take physical possession of the shops alleging that she had sold these shops to Rakesh Kumar. In these circumstances, the appellants were forced to file a suit for injunction against respondent No.2, 4 and Rakesh Kumar. It transpired that vide sale deed dated 14.03.2013 Rakesh Kumar had sold ¼th of his purported share in the 5 shops and vide sale deed dated 26.02.2014 he also sold his remaining share to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3. It is only thereafter respondent No.2 lodged FIR No.174/2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 506 IPC against the appellants alleging therein that when respondent No.2 went to take physical possession of the shops, she was resisted by the appellants. It was alleged that the appellants showed forged and fabricated documents. To similar effect is the second FIR lodged by respondent No.3. It was alleged that the appellants showed forged and fabricated documents. To similar effect is the second FIR lodged by respondent No.3. It may also be mentioned that the appellants had even filed a case for cancellation of sale deed dated 14.03.2013 on 29.05.2015. Giving this background, the case set up by the appellants before the High Court was that the FIRs were nothing but a counterblast and the prosecution cases were filed with mala fide intentions just to harass the appellants who are in possession of the said shops since 1990 and thereafter even agreement to sell was executed between them and respondent No.4 on 24.02.2005. 5. We find that while considering the petition of the appellants under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court has passed stereotyped order without even taking note of the aforesaid facts and contentions raised by making general remarks that at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the appellants. We may also record at this stage that cases after cases are coming to this Court from the High Court of Allahabad and in all such cases we find stereotyped orders, worded in identical terms, are passed. It is the minimum requirement that contentions raised in such petitions are noted and dealt with specifically. However, no such attempts are made. We are constrained to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits by giving reasoning. 6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Ordered Accordingly.