ORDER : 1. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the status report furnished by the Station House Officer, Beawar City, District Ajmer, which is taken on record. 2. As per the status report, after investigation, the offences have been found to be proved against the petitioners under Sections 193, 420 and 120-B of IPC. 3. This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR No. 216/2019 registered at Police Station Beawar City, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 452, 427 and 120-B of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was neither aware of the execution of the registered sale-deed dated 08.07.2013 by her power of attorney holder nor, she received any sale consideration under the aforesaid sale-deed. He submitted that the complainant has already filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of the subsequent sale-deed dated 21.05.2018 and hence, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed. Qua the petitioner No. 2, learned counsel submitted that the FIR is bereft of any allegation against him. He submitted that the petitioner No. 2 was neither the executor of the power of attorney nor of the subsequent sale-deed dated 21.05.2018 and hence, he has falsely been implicated in this case. He, therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR in question. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that during the course of investigation it was found that the petitioner No. 1 has executed the power of attorney as well as an agreement to sale dated 01.10.2012 in favour of the complainant under which she has already received the complete sale consideration. The power of attorney as well as the sale agreement was witnessed by the petitioner No. 2. It was also mentioned in the agreement that the original title documents were handed over to the complainant. Thereafter, taking advantage of the plot lying vacant, the petitioner No. 2 lodged a report dated 09.05.2018 with the Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer as to missing of the original title documents of the plot in question and thereafter the plot in question, which was already sold to the complainant, was re-sold in favour of third person. The subsequent registered sale-deed also bears signature of petitioner No. 2 as witness. The subsequent registered sale-deed also bears signature of petitioner No. 2 as witness. He submitted that in view of the aforesaid material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation, the offences under Sections 193, 420 and 120-B of IPC have been found to be proved against the petitioners. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of this criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 7. Undoubtedly, the FIR in question discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner No. 1 and the allegations have been found to be proved by the investigating agency. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 in sub-clause 3 of Para 102 has held as under:- “3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.” 9. Thus as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case of State of Haryana and Others (supra), the material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation can also be taken into consideration before quashing the FIR. The status report reveals that not only power of attorney but, an agreement to sale dated 01.10.2012 was also executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of the complainant receiving the entire sale consideration. Both these documents i.e. power of attorney and the sale agreement were witnessed by the petitioner No. 2 also. Thereafter, despite specific averment in the agreement dated 01.10.2012 as to handing over of original title documents of the plot in question to the complainant, the petitioner No. 2, with dishonest intention, lodged a report dated 09.05.2018 with the Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer stating therein that original title documents of the plot in question were lost and thereafter, in furtherance of their illegal and dishonest desire, subsequent sale-deed dated 21.05.2018 came to be executed in favour of third person by the petition No. 1 which was duly witnessed by the petitioner No. 2. 10. 10. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was unaware of the execution of registered sale-deed dated 08.07.2013 and she did not receive the sale consideration also, are subject-matter of trial and cannot be countenanced at this stage. Even otherwise also, under the law of contract, the principal is bound by the act done by his/her agent and the law presumes that the acts done by the agent under the authority given by the principal, are on behest of the principal who is aware of the same. Further, the investigation has revealed that in furtherance of fraudulent intention, the petitioner No. 2 has lodged a false report dated 09.05.2018 as to the original documents of the plot in question having been misplaced and thereafter executed registered sale-deed of the same plot in favour of the third person. 11. Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of filing of civil suit by the complainant seeking cancellation of the sale-deed dated 21.05.2018, the FIR in question deserves to be quashed and set aside, has no merit. It is trite that mere pendency of civil suit between the parties is no ground to quash the criminal proceeding. I may in this connection refer to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in cases of M. Krishnan vs. Vijay Singh and Another, (2001) 8 SCC 645 , Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal and Others, (2002) 1 SCC 555 and judgment of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1618/2015, Basant Raj Mehta vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, decided on 01.03.2016. 12. In view of the aforesaid settled principle of law, the FIR in question cannot be quashed on account of pendency of civil suit filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of the subsequent registered sale-deed. 13. The offshoot of the aforesaid analysis is that this criminal miscellaneous petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly.