JUDGMENT : R.C. Khulbe, J. The applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C') for quashing the cognizance order dated 18.07.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2017, State vs. Suresh Chand Sood & Another, u/s 420, 406, and 120- B IPC, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Laksar, District Haridwar. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for applicant that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the crime and there is no offence is made out against him. Apart from that, initially, he was serving in Indian Army and left the service of Indian Army on 31.01.2013, thereafter, he joined M/s Birla Tyres, Laksar on 17.11.2014, he has no concerned with the crime. Since the so called land was purchased by the M/s Birla Tyres on 08.01.2007 by way of registered sale deed from the father and uncle of the informant. 3. The crux of the case are that the informant- Munesh Kumar has sent information to the Kotwali, Laksar District Haridwar against the present applicant as well as other persons. Accordingly, FIR was lodged on 14.01.2016, u/s 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. After completion the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against two persons, namely, Suresh Chand Sood and Rajesh Datta, u/s 420, 406 of IPC 120-B IPC on 02.04.2017. Accordingly, the cognizance was taken on 18.07.2017 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar against the present applicant. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the present application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the aforesaid order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. The copy of the sale deed dated 08.01.2007 is on record. The main allegation is that Khadak Singh and Kalu, who are the father and uncle of the informant, sold out their property by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.2007 in favour of M/s Birla Tyres for a sum of Rs.1,99,80,000/-, although as per the cheque nos. 000625 and 000626 amounting Rs.67,47,300/- and Rs.67,47,300/- respectively, dated 08.01.2007 were received by the sellers, but cheque nos. 00623 and 000624 amount Rs.32,42,700/- and Rs.32,42, 700/- respectively, dated 08.01.2007 were not received by the sellers. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that, the offence relates to the sale deed executed on 08.01.2007, although the FIR was lodged on 14.01.2016. 00623 and 000624 amount Rs.32,42,700/- and Rs.32,42, 700/- respectively, dated 08.01.2007 were not received by the sellers. 7. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that, the offence relates to the sale deed executed on 08.01.2007, although the FIR was lodged on 14.01.2016. The present applicant was in the Indian Army at the time of executing the sale deed. He left the job of Indian Army on 31.01.2013 and joined M/s Birla Tyres on 17.11.2014. This fact is admitted to the respondents that at the time of executing the said sale deed on 08.01.2007, the present applicant was not employee of the Birla Tyres, in any capacity. 8. Article 20 of the Constitution of India reads as under: 20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences.-(1) No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself 9. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the present applicant was not the employee of the M/s Birla Tyres in any capacity at the time of committing the offence. Hence, the applicant cannot be prosecuted in the offence committed on 08.01.2007. This fact did not notice by the concerned Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance, the concerned Magistrate simply summoned the present applicant on the basis of charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer, which is illegal and cannot be sustainable. 10. In these circumstances, the present application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the cognizance order dated 18.07.2017 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 498 of 2017, State vs. Suresh Chand Sood & Another, u/s 420, 406, and 120-B IPC, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Laksar, District Haridwar, are hereby quashed against the present applicant only. 11. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.