JUDGMENT : G.R. MOOLCHANDANI, J. This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking quashing of FIR No. 19/2013 registered with Police Station, Mukundgarh (Jhunjhunu) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. Heard contentions of both the sides, it has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR impugned is not sustainable since it has falsely been lodged to harass the petitioner, who has been an employer of complainant-respondent no. 2. Petitioner is a senile person of more than 90 years of age, who reposed his faith in his complainant employee in helping alienating property, which was owned and possessed by the petitioner at Mukundgarh, the FIR impugned is lodged belatedly after about 15 years and delay is unexplained, relying upon Apex Court Authority in Suresh v. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava (2005) 3 SCC 670 and Anand Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2006 WLC (UC) 708, it has been urged that on the sole ground of delay, said FIR is liable to be quashed. Referring Annexure-R5 it has further been contended that contents of R5 are enough to infer that FIR impugned is bogus and so far as alleged agreement to sell is concerned, there is no privity of contract between the executant of said agreement and respondent Pradeep Kumar being a stranger has got no say because nothing alleged has been perperated on basis of alleged agreement nor any injury has been caused to respondent Pradeep Kumar, so the petition be allowed and FIR No. 19/2013 registered with PS Mukundgarh, Jhunjhunu be quashed. 3. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has contended that contents of FIR No. 19/2013 are self speaking since agreement to sell, specific performance of which was sought, is an admitted document and petitioner has compromised to execute sale in response to said agreement to sell, even sale-deed has been executed consequent thereto and petitioner has maliciously acted illegally by fabricating an agreement to sell to frustrate, rights already vested in favour of the respondent depicting that questioned property was agreed to be sold to someone else, prior to the agreement executed in favour of the respondent/complainant, which was in detriment to the interest of respondent, on the basis of a forged agreement to sell, agreement executed in favour of the respondent was unnecessarily being suspected nevertheless, valid agreement to sell, executed in favour of the respondent and due execution of sale-deed was effected on the basis of said agreement, in favour of the respondent, which is enough to establish veracity, it shows that petitioner willfully acted in fabricating false agreement to sell, which is manifestly bogus since date of the agreement is shown prior to the date of purchase of the stamp paper, upon which alleged text has been scribed, so act of the petitioner is itself explicit and there is no ground to quash FIR, interim order staying investigation of the FIR, needs to be vacated to facilitate investigation for coming FIR to its logical end, so the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. It evinces from material available on the record that indisputably both the parties have entered into a compromise and have agreed to settle their civil dispute vide compromise dated 05.12.2016 and a decree has also been passed by the court civil Court on 11.02.2017, in consonance to the compromise arrived at between the rival sides. 5. The material reflects that petitioner Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla was an employer of Mali Ram grand-father of Pradeep Kumar Sharma and after demise of Maliram Sharma. Petitioner Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla retained services of Pradeep Kumar Sharma as his employee to look after his immovable property situated at Mukundgarh. 5. The material reflects that petitioner Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla was an employer of Mali Ram grand-father of Pradeep Kumar Sharma and after demise of Maliram Sharma. Petitioner Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla retained services of Pradeep Kumar Sharma as his employee to look after his immovable property situated at Mukundgarh. Several communications, which have been sent to Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla by Pradeep Kumar Sharma, copies of which are available on the record does indicate that factum of master and servant relations acceded by Pradeep Kumar Sharma, basic dispute pertaining to transaction of the property and execution of conveyance deed has already been settled between the parties amicably. 6. Agreement to sale dated 11.11.1998 which has been executed by Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla in favour of Dr. Satish Johari son of Shri Ramesh Chandra Johari relates to the property situated at Mukundgar, which was subsequently transferred by Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla to Dr. Satish Johari through transfer, has got no concern or interest with Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma since said property has been transferred to Dr. Satish Johari by Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla, after entering into a contract to which Pradeep Kumar Sharma had acted as an intermediary in getting the deal materialised, in capacity of a local proxy at Mukundgarh, representing Shri Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla and this agreement to sale dated 11.11.1998 also refers, mode of payment in respect of purported consideration, which stands ratified, in view of police statements of Dr. Satish Johari son of Ramesh Chandra Johari dated 17.04.2011 recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. which has further been ratified by a letter dated 27.11.1998 (Annex.6) addressed to Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla disclosing mode of payment, which has got details pertaining to payment of money per cash and through certain demand drafts to vendor by the vendee. 7. It is not out of context to observe that the said agreement to sale dated 11.11.1998, alleged to have been drafted on a stamp paper dated 06.03.1999, obviously, pertains to 11.11.1998 against which, FIR impugned No. 19/2013 P.S. Mukundgarh has been lodged on 06.02.2013 i.e. after a lapse and delay of about fifteen years or so. Moreover, the said transaction does not relates to Pradeep Kumar Sharma nor it has got any fiscal interest with Pradeep Kumar Sharma because the said agreement to sale, which has further been culminated in a conveyance deed pertains to Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla, vendor and Dr. Moreover, the said transaction does not relates to Pradeep Kumar Sharma nor it has got any fiscal interest with Pradeep Kumar Sharma because the said agreement to sale, which has further been culminated in a conveyance deed pertains to Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla, vendor and Dr. Satish Johari vendee, alienation of which have got no relevance with Pradeep Kumar Sharma, besides said agreement to sale has already taken shape of conveyance deed, subsequently between Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla and Dr. Satish Johari no fiscal detriment has caused by virtue of said agreement to Pradeep Kumar Sharma. 8. Apex court in Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration AIR 1963 SC 1572 , has held that ““Defraud” involves two elements - Deceit and injury to person deceived - No injury to person deceived - Accused held not guilty under Sections 467 and 468”, likewise in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 , Apex Court has observed that “Dispute of civil nature - On facts, dispute essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership - R-2's attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant failed, appellant acquitted in another case alleging offence under Section 406 IPC-Possession of the shop in question had also been handed over by the appellant to R-2 - Held, pending civil suit will take care of all those issues including alleged use of forged and fabricated documents - In such a situation, continuation of pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law - Impugned order set aside - The entire proceedings of criminal case quashed and set aside - Order will have no effect on the pending civil suit to be decided independently and in accordance with law - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447 and 448 r/w S. 34 IPC (Paras 13 and 14)”, and in Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. AIR 2010 SC 840 , it has been held that “FIR alleging offences u/S. 420, S. 467, S. 468, S. 471 - No dishonest intention on part of appellant nor had she acted fraudulently - Appellant had nothing to gain from same - She was not going to save bar of limitation - No damage or injury likely to be caused to anybody-Said charges, there fore, innocuous and not giving rise to any offences - Prosecution by complainant was, therefore, malicious and vengeanceful - Being abuse of process of law, liable to be quashed” besides a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Krishna Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2012 (3) RLW 2179 (Raj.) has observed that “petitioner allegedly made certain entries in his record to cheat the complainant but no allegation that such fraudulent entries were even attempted to be put to use - It is only a preparation of wrong document for the purpose of cheating - Held - A preparation to commit cheating is not an offence - Proceedings set aside”, similarly in Kamla Devi v. State of Rajasthan 2018 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 451, while dealing with Section 482 a co-ordinate bench of this Court has observed that “Alleged cheating by agreement of sale of land whereas same land had already been sold to some other party - No explanation why complainant kept silence for 18 years since date of agreement-F.I.R. quashed”. 9. Apparently, a compromise has already taken place between Parmeshwar Lal Ganeriwalla and Pradeep Kumar Sharma and a competent Civil Court has already passed a decree in favour of Pradeep Kumar Sharma, so in the fore-discussed given situation continuance of FIR impugned, if permitted to be progressed, shall be nothing less than to permit protraction of abuse of process. 10. As discussed above, no fiscal detriment has been caused to Pradeep Kumar Sharma by dint of said agreement to sale dated 11.11.1998 and FIR impugned has also been lodged after a delay of about fifteen years, so in the interest of justice and to check miscarriage of justice and to deter abuse of process, it appears just and necessary to pass orders to quash FIR No. 19/2013 registered with Police Station, Mukundgarh Jhunjhunu dt. 06.02.2013 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. 11. As a result, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 19/2013 registered with Police Station, Mukundgarh Jhunjhunu dated 06.02.2013 for the offence/s punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and further proceedings consequent thereto are quashed. Disputing parties are advised to bury the hatches and act upon to give a quietus to their disharmony. With aforesaid observation the petition stands disposed of.