ORDER : Mr. Sandeep Mehta, J. Perused the impugned F.I.R. and the case diary. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners herein have approached this Court for assailing the F.I.R.No.612/2014 registered at the Police Station Hiran Magri, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of the I.P.C. 3. The respondent complainant lodged above F.I.R against the petitioners and on few others and alleging that the petitioner No.1 sold a plot measuring 20*50 feet to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 50 lacs. While selling the plot to the complainant, the seller concealed the fact of an earlier sale deed of the same plot having been executed by her brother-in-law. 4. It is categorically mentioned in the F.I.R. that the petitioner No.1 had lodged a criminal case against her brother-in-law for the said sale. The complainant thus alleged that the petitioner No.1 concealed the fact of earlier sale of the plot while executing the disputed sale deed in favour of the complainant and thereby cheated him. 5. It is also mentioned in F.I.R. that the accused petitioner Lalit Kumar portrayed himself to be the cousin brother of the petitioner Smt. Suman Devi whereas the other accused also projected themselves to be related to her. 6. The I.O. has collected numerous documents during investigation including the disputed sale deed. 7. On perusal of the sale deed, it is apparent that there is a total concealment in the document regarding when the earlier sale of the plot and the litigation instituted thereof by the petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Devi. Thus, without any doubt, she acted fraudulently by which executing the sale deed in favour of the complainant. However, so far as the petitioner No.2 Lalit Kumar is concerned, he is simply a witness in the documents. Manifestly, he did not give any fraudulent allurement to the complainant. 8. Mr. Deepak Menaria vehemently urged that the entire transaction was stage managed by property dealers namely Lalu Ram and Raju who were already aware of earlier transaction and the complainant was also apprised of the same. 9. The sale consideration was also paid to Rajkumar and Lalu Ram and on these grounds, he implored the Court to quash the impugned F.I.R. 10. 9. The sale consideration was also paid to Rajkumar and Lalu Ram and on these grounds, he implored the Court to quash the impugned F.I.R. 10. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the statements advanced by the petitioners' counsel and urged that it was the duty of the petitioner Smt. Suman Devi to divulge the information regarding the earlier transactions pertaining to the plot in question because she was well aware of the same having instituted a criminal case in relation thereto. However, she intentionally concealed these facts and indicated in the sale deed that the property was neat and clean and with not encumbrances whatsoever. Thus she had an intention of cheating the complainant and nothing else. 11. I have heard and appreciated the arguments advanced by the respective counsel and perused the impugned F.I.R. threadbare. 12. So far as the petitioner Smt. Suman Devi is concerned, there is ample material on record to show that while executing the disputed sale deed in favour of the complainant, she did not make any reference of the previous sale of the plot in the documents even though she was well aware of the same. She took the sale consideration from the complainant and projected that the property was neat and clean in the sale deed. Thus, ex-facie the prayer made by the petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Devi to quash the F.I.R. cannot be accepted. However, the petitioner No.2 Lalit Kumar is simply a witness in the sale deed. He apparently has no relationship with the seller and as such he cannot be attributed with the knowledge or intention to cheat the complainant. 13. In view of the above discussion the instant misc. petition deserves to be accepted in part. 14. The petition filed by petitioner No.2 Lalit Kumar is accepted and further proceedings of the F.I.R. No.612/2014 are quashed to his extent. 15. At the same time the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner No.1 Smt. Suman Devi fails and is hereby dismissed.