JUDGMENT : Indira Jain, J. 1. By these two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applicants are challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 492/ 2010 and 493/2010. 2. The facts giving rise to the applications may be stated, in brief, as under: (a) Applicants Jadavlal and Ramesh are the original complainants. At the relevant time, non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 were the members and non-applicant no. 1 was Chairman of a registered society M/s. Ma Sharda Housing Agency. The grievance of complainants is that non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 influenced them to purchase an undeveloped plot from non-applicant no. 1-agency. (b) On 11.10.2000, agreement of sale of a plot situated at mouza Wathoda was entered into and each of applicants parted with huge amount of Rs. 4,77,000/- out of the total consideration of Rs. 5,23,000/- and Rs. 10,34,536/-. Later on it was revealed that assurance given by non-applicants was totally false and lay-out was not in the name of M/s. Ma Sharda Housing Agency. In fact, agency was not the original owner, but non-applicant no. 1 representing himself as Chairman of agency and non-applicant nos. 2 and 3 as members, cheated and duped applicants by entering into false agreement of sale. (c) Both the applicants then filed Regular Criminal Case Nos. 63/2001 and 64/2001 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. After recording verification of complainants, process was issued to the accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence before charge was recorded by the trial court. Vide order dated 7.5.2010, accused were discharged under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order of discharge was carried before the revisional court in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 492 of 2010 and 493 of 2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dismissed the revisions on 16.5.2012. This order is impugned in present applications. 3. Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for Shri P.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for non-applicants. 4. 492 of 2010 and 493 of 2010. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur dismissed the revisions on 16.5.2012. This order is impugned in present applications. 3. Heard Dr. R.S. Sundaram, learned counsel for applicants and Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for Shri P.S. Tiwari, learned counsel for non-applicants. 4. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for applicants that both the courts below missed an important ingredient of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code that applicants were induced to part with the huge amount by falsely making a representation that agency is the owner of the plot. The learned counsel urged that in the facts and circumstances of the case, trial court ought to have framed charge against the non-applicants as prima facie ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were very much present to proceed against the accused persons. He submits that posing as an owner when not an owner and with dishonest intention to induce the person to part with huge amount would constitute an offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and as such error is apparent in the order of the trial court as well as revisional court, which according to him, needs to be rectified in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court. 5. Per contra, Ms. M.A. Jaiswal holding for learned counsel for the non-applicants, strongly supports the orders and submits that there was no sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused, hence, trial court was right in discharging the accused. 6. In normal course, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this court would have been slow in interfering with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the revisional court. Here the grievance of complainants is that non-applicants together intentionally induced the complainants and entered into an agreement of sale of the plot on the assurance to execute sale deed when Ma Sharda Housing Agency was not the real owner of the plot at all. 7. It can be seen from 7/12 extracts Exhs.78 to 81 that agency purchased the property in dispute in the year 2002. Agreements with the complainants were executed on 11.10.2000. It means on the date of execution of agreements, Ma Sharda Housing Agency was not the real owner of the plot which were agreed to be sold to the complainants. 7. It can be seen from 7/12 extracts Exhs.78 to 81 that agency purchased the property in dispute in the year 2002. Agreements with the complainants were executed on 11.10.2000. It means on the date of execution of agreements, Ma Sharda Housing Agency was not the real owner of the plot which were agreed to be sold to the complainants. Non-applicants do not dispute that agency became owner of the property in the year 2002 and at the time of agreements with the complainants, agency was not the real owner of the property. According to non-applicants, they were in possession and later on sale deed came to be executed in favour of Ma Sharda Housing Agency. They submit that being in possession they had interest in the property and having interest, they entered into agreements with the complainants. In such a situation, non-applicants submitted that there was no question of inducement or cheating as alleged by complainants. It is contended that dispute is purely of civil nature and both the courts rightly concluded that case to frame charge was not made out. They urged that in extra-ordinary jurisdiction, concurrent findings recorded by the courts may not be interfered with, as act alleged on the part of non-applicants/accused does not fall within the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Needless to state that facts in the present case will have to be appreciated in the light of the definition of cheating under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The said definition reads as under: 415. Cheating.- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat." Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code relates to cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The ingredients of section are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him. The ingredients of section are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him. (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. (iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 9. It would not be out of place to mention here that a person who suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, may have remedies both under Civil and Criminal law. The injury alleged may form the basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of the crime punishable under the criminal law. In a dispute between the parties arising out of transaction involving passing valuable properties/consideration between them, the aggrieved person may have a right to sue in civil law and at the same time, law permits the victim to proceed against the wrong door for having committed an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, as the case may be. 10. The grievance of applicants in the present case is that non-applicants have dishonestly induced them to part with the huge money concealing the fact that Ma Sharda Housing Agency is not the owner and ownership vests in the third person. In the complaint and also in the evidence before charge, allegations of dishonest inducement on the part of non-applicants and parting away with the huge consideration by complainants are clearly made. It is not in serious dispute that at the time of entering into agreements with the complainants, Ma Sharda Housing Agency was not the real owner of the property and this fact was not disclosed to complainants at the time of agreements. Had the non-applicants informed the applicants that real owner was the third person, applicants would not have parted with the huge consideration. Copy of agreement placed on record is self explanatory to indicate dishonest concealment of facts. Had the non-applicants informed the applicants that real owner was the third person, applicants would not have parted with the huge consideration. Copy of agreement placed on record is self explanatory to indicate dishonest concealment of facts. This agreement shows that the agency as an owner agreed to sell the plot though it was not the real owner at the relevant time. In such a situation, this court finds that entering into an agreement to sell the plot owned by third person would fall within the ambit of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. In the above premise, interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court is warranted. Hence, the following order: (i) Criminal Application (APL) Nos. 480/2012 and 481/2012 are allowed. (ii) Impugned orders dated 7.5.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case Nos. 63/2001 and 64/2001 and of Revisional Court in Criminal Revision Application Nos. 492/2010 and 493/2010, dated 16.5.2012, stand quashed and set aside. (iii) Regular Criminal Case Nos. 63/2001 and 64/2001 are restored to the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur for disposal in accordance with the law. (iv) No order as to costs. (v) Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause. Applications allowed.