JUDGMENT : P.S. Rana, J.. Present criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure against order dated 8.1.2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalaghar District Solan H.P. whereby charge under Section 420 IPC was framed against the revisionist. Brief facts of the case 2. Complainant Mr.M.K. Seth M/s Innovation Textile Private Limited New Delhi filed FIR No. 15 dated 23.1.2010 alleging that H.C. Sharma and Anmol Sharma are father and son respectively and complainant was in need of land for setting up a textile industry and complainant was searching land in Himachal Pradesh. It is alleged that complainant came in contact with H.C. Sharma and Anmol Sharma and they told the complainant that they are owners of 61 bighas and 5 biswas of land situated at village Bater, P.O. Basti. It is alleged that H.C. Sharma and Anmol Sharma claimed that they are influenced persons in Himachal Pradesh and they would get all necessary permissions for sale from the Government of H.P. to complainant as required under Section 118 of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972. It is alleged that complainant agreed to purchase the property and agreement to sell immovable land dated 28.9.2006 was executed between complainant and H.C. Sharma accused in consideration amount of Rs.73500000/- (Rupees seven crore thirty five lac). It is alleged that earnest money of sale was paid by complainant to H.C. Sharma accused to the tune of Rs.22050000/- (Rupees two crore twenty lac fifty thousand) by way of cheque No. 297051 dated 28.9.2006 drawn on HDFC Bank New Delhi. It is alleged that H.C. Sharma accused represented that immovable property is free from all encumbrances. It is alleged that it was agreed inter se the parties that permission would be obtained within 150 days and if permission would not be obtained then H.C.Sharma accused would refund the entire amount of Rs.2205000/- (Rupees two crore twenty lac fifty thousand) to complainant without any delay. It is alleged that complainant moved the Government for permission but accused persons did not cooperate after the receipt of earnest money of sale. It is alleged that complainant moved the Government for permission but accused persons did not cooperate after the receipt of earnest money of sale. It is alleged that immovable property involved in sale agreement was already mortgaged with State Bank of India Branch at Sai road Baddi Tehsil Nalagarh prior to agreement of sale in lieu of loan obtained by accused H.C. Sharma from State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.12.40 crore. It is alleged that loan which accused persons obtained from State Bank of India became NPA due to defaults of accused H.C. Sharma. Investigation was completed and thereafter investigation report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was filed before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh District Solan H.P. against H.C. Sharma. It was submitted in report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure that no criminal offence was committed by Anmol Sharma. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nalagarh discharged the accused H.C. Sharma qua criminal offences punishable under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge against accused H.C. Sharma under Section 420 IPC vide order dated 8.1.2015. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist and learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.1 and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of non-revisionist No.2 and Court also perused the entire record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in this criminal revision petition:- Point No.1 Whether it is expedient in the ends of justice to quash the charge framed against the revisionist under Section 420 IPC relating to complicated facts alleged by complainant and denied by revisionist as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of revision petition? Point No. 2 Final Order. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that there is no element of cheating on the part of revisionist at the time of execution of agreement dated 28.9.2006 and factum of mortgage was in knowledge of non-revisionist No.2 i.e. M/s Innovative Textiles Private Limited and on this ground revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. Non-revisionist No. 2 has specifically mentioned in complaint that revisionist had concealed the factum of mortgage at the time of execution of agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006. The same fact is disputed by revisionist in revision petition. Non-revisionist No. 2 has specifically mentioned in complaint that revisionist had concealed the factum of mortgage at the time of execution of agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006. The same fact is disputed by revisionist in revision petition. Dispute inter se parties is about facts. It is well settled law that disputed facts can be proved only by way of oral evidence only. In view of the fact that complicated question of facts is asserted by one party and denied by another party it is not expedient in the ends of justice to quash the charge framed by learned trial Court against revisionist in present case. See 2009)1 SCC 516 title R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta and others. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 2567 title Rishipal Singh vs. State of U.P.that Court should not decide disputed questions of facts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while exercising inherent powers. 6. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that civil suit for recovery already filed by non-revisionist No.2 against revisionist and on this ground charge framed against revisionist be quashed is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that aggrieved person has legal right to file civil proceedings and criminal proceedings in competent Court of law. It is also well settled law that civil proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent proceedings. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 3352 title Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Md. Siraj and another that if allegations disclose a civil dispute the same by itself would not be a ground to hold that criminal proceedings would not be allowed to continue. It was held by Hon'ble Apex Court of India that Court would not look any document relied upon by defence. It was held that power should be exercised sparingly and Court should not pass any order in favour of accused holding absence of mensrea or actus reus. 7. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that prima facie no offence is made out against revisionist under Section 420 IPC in present case is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that for offence of cheating there must be deception and dishonest intention of accused person at the time of making promise. It is well settled law that for offence of cheating there must be deception and dishonest intention of accused person at the time of making promise. The fact whether intention of revisionist was dishonest at the time of making promise or at the time of execution of agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006 cannot be decided at this stage of case. Same dispute is a dispute of complicated facts inter se parties and same facts will be decided by learned trial Court after giving due opportunity to both parties to prove their case in accordance with law. After careful perusal of statements of witnesses namely (1) Rakesh Bajaj, (2) Veer Kumar, (3) Madan Lal, (4) Bhag Chand, (5) Sanjiv Kumar son of Munshi Ram, (6) Sanjeev Kumar son of Umesh Parsad, (7) Om Parkash, (8) Pawan Kumar, (9) Aruna Mogia, (10) Preeti Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. SCO 409 Sector 8 Panchkula, (11) Surender Kumar AGM (Haryana) AMC Project Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor MDC Panchkula, (12) Narhari, (13) Rameshwar Dass Sharma, (14) Amit Khanna, (15) Surender Kumar Gupta, (16) Vinod Singla, (17) Manager HDFC Bank Ltd. G-3/4 Suryakiran Building 19K.g marg New Delhi, (18) SI Bhupesh Kumar (19) Jyotsna Dadwal JMIC-1 Nalagarh, (20) Dr.Meenakshi Mahajan Assistant Director Document and Photo Division SFSL Unga, (21) Kalyan Singh, (22) Ram Lal, (23) Prem Lal, (24) Om Parkash and after persual of documentary evidence placed on record i.e. (1) Agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006, (2) Statement of account of Hem Raj Sharma, (3) Nakal Roznamcha dated 9.10.2006 issued by Patwari, (4) Copy of jamabandi for the year 2001-2002 placed on record, (5) Account opening form issued by HDFC Bank, (6) Affidavit given by H.C. Sharma, (7) Receipt of Rs.22050000/- (Rupees two crore twenty lac fifty thousand only) given by accused HC Sharma to M/s Innovative Textiles Private Limited, (8) Subsequent agreement inter se accused and complainant placed on record and other material documents annexed with report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure it is held that prima facie there are sufficient grounds for persuming that revisionist has committed an offence under Section 420 IPC and it is held that learned trial Court has framed the charge against accused persons in accordance with law. 8. 8. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that learned trial Court has committed illegality by way of framing charge against revisionist under Section 420 IPC is also rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge meticulous consideration of evidence and other material is not required. See AIR 1981 SC 1548 Mohd. Akbar Dar and others vs. State of J&K. See AIR 1977 SC 2433 titled Yash Pal Mital vs. State of Punjab. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of revisionist that in view of terms and conditions mentioned in agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006 revision petition be accepted is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is well settled law that agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006 will be proved as per Indian Evidence Act 1872 during trial stage of case. It is well settled law that at the time of framing of charge the Court would not look any document relied upon by defence. See AIR 2014 SC 3352 title Mosiruddin Munshi vs. Md. Siraj and another. Effect of terms and conditions of agreement of sale dated 28.9.2006 executed inter se parties will be decided by learned trial Court in accordance with law after giving due opportunities to both parties to prove their case. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided against the revisionist. Point No.2 (Final Order) 10. In view of findings on point No.1 above revision petition filed by revisionist is dismissed. Order of learned trial Court dated 8.1.2015 is affirmed. Parties are directed to appear before learned trial Court on 21.6.2016. File of learned trial Court along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith. Observations will not affect merits of the case in any manner and will be strictly confined for disposal of petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Revision petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any also stands disposed of.