ORDER : 1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-petitioners being aggrieved by order dated 20.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara in Criminal Revision No.12/2014 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dated 25.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No.368/2013 has been confirmed. 2. The facts in nutshell are that respondent No.2 Vijay Shanker lodged an FIR No.260/2011 at Police Station Nathdwara stating therein that on 31.08.2010 and 03.09.2010, the accused-petitioners No.1 to 5 executed a sale deed of the agricultural land situated in Khasra Nos.579-586 ad measuring to 4 Bigha 19 biswa, claiming it to be their 1/5th share over the said land for which they received Rs.14.5 lacs from the complainant-respondent No.2. It was further alleged that accused Umakant and Mahesh Chandra assured that the aforesaid land belongs to accused Nos. 1 to 5 and the same was shown as undisputed. After execution of sale-deed Manohari Bai, Pappu Bai, Puphpa Bai and Panna Lal came there to claim the said land as owned by them, and thereby removed the standing crop from disputed land. When the complainant-respondent No.2 went to register a case of theft then stay order was shown to him and on enquiry, the accused ignored him and not responded. After investigation police submitted a final closure report on the ground of dispute to be a civil nature. On protest petition and recording a statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara (herein after referred to as ‘the trial Court’) took cognizance against the present petitioners along with Yogesh Kumar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submitted that a bare perusal of the complaint indicates that not a single allegation was made against the present petitioners, who are married women and residing in their matrimonial home, which is far away from the land in question. He would further submitted that the present petitioners are recorded Khatedar of the land in question and after mutation, the land was duly transferred in their names thus, they are entitled to transfer the land on the basis of mutation as per the Land Revenue Act. He would further submitted that the present petitioners are recorded Khatedar of the land in question and after mutation, the land was duly transferred in their names thus, they are entitled to transfer the land on the basis of mutation as per the Land Revenue Act. He would further submitted that allegation in FIR were made out against other persons namely Umakant and Mahesh Chandra, but none of them were arrayed as accused by the trial Court. He would further submitted that the revenue record indicates that the present petitioners are recorded land holders but a revenue suit for declaration, partition and injunction of the land already mutated in favour of the petitioners, was filed by Manohari Bai, Pappu Bai, Pushpa Bai and Panna Lal. He would further submitted that just before the registry, an ex-parte stay order was obtained from the court of SDM, Nathdwara and this stay order was never served upon the present petitioners whereas the allegation against the petitioners is execution of sale deed despite the stay order. He would further submitted that petitioners were neither aware of revenue suit nor passing of stay order by the SDM, Nathdwara. He would further submitted that the only allegation is registration of sale deed despite stay order, and violation of stay order is a civil act not a criminal act. He would further submitted that after investigation, police filed a closure report in the matter treating it to be dispute of civil nature, as the rights and claim of Manohari Bai & others have not matured as the revenue suit is still pending, therefore, no case against the petitioners is made out. The trial Court ignoring the outcome of final report, have passed the order taking cognizance, which was further affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara (herein after referred to as ‘the revisional court’) without appreciating arguments advanced by present petitioners. He would further submitted that the conduct of present petitioners is bonafide and they were not aware about facts in the matter except execution of sale-deed. He would submitted that unless criminal intent is established the order to take cognizance itself is illegal so he prayed for quashing of proceedings qua the present petitioners. 4. He would further submitted that the conduct of present petitioners is bonafide and they were not aware about facts in the matter except execution of sale-deed. He would submitted that unless criminal intent is established the order to take cognizance itself is illegal so he prayed for quashing of proceedings qua the present petitioners. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and he would submitted that learned trial Court after considering facts in totality have taken cognizance in the matter and there exists no ground for interference by hon’ble Court. 5. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor for State. Despite service of notice upon respondent No.2-complainant, none appeared on his behalf. 6. Respondent No.2-complainant registered an FIR by filing a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., wherein it was stated that accused Umakant and Mahesh Chandra have assured that land in question was undisputed property and no other dispute was pending. Learned trial Court referred the statement of Deepak, a stamp, who mentioned that it was Yogesh Kumar who purchased stamp of Rs.20,000/-and statement of Bhhaga, in the order of trial Court. In the order itself no specific overt act was mentioned against any of petitioners. All these petitioners are said to be related to each other as a family and their residential address fortifies their claim that all the petitioners are married women and residing in their matrimonial home. In a complaint itself, no specific allegation were made except that petitioners No.1 to 4 and Mr. Yogesh Kumar claiming share to be 1/5th each over the land in question had executed the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2-complainant. The fact of the matter is that present land is an agricultural land and admittedly record was in favour of the present petitioners, at the time of execution of sale deed. After execution, four individuals Manohari Bai, Pappu Bai, Pushpa Bai and Panna Lal have entered over the disputed land, which was purchased by respondent No.2-complainant and removed the standing crop without permission then only the respondent no. 2 came to know about so called stay order. The rights of Manohari Bai etc. After execution, four individuals Manohari Bai, Pappu Bai, Pushpa Bai and Panna Lal have entered over the disputed land, which was purchased by respondent No.2-complainant and removed the standing crop without permission then only the respondent no. 2 came to know about so called stay order. The rights of Manohari Bai etc. were not crystallized at the time of FIR, which indicates that the claim of Manohari Bai and others was pending consideration before the revenue authority thus, petitioners on basis of land revenue record, if transferred the land in question even then it cannot be said to be a criminal offence. The simple principle of law for transfer of any property is that no person can transfer property so as to confer on the transferee a title better than what he possesses. 7. Respondent No.2 had entered into the shoes of the petitioners and after execution of sale deed, it is the duty of the petitioners to defend the interest of respondent No.2. As regard to stay order is concerned, the material on record indicates that revenue suit was filed on 23.07.2010 and stay order was passed on very same day. Now, the question is that whether stay order was communicated to the petitioners or not, though on record no such document was filed to indicate service and knowledge of stay order to petitioners. Whenever a criminal case is registered and police after detailed investigation, filed a closure/ final report on the ground that the dispute is of a civil nature and complainant, if prefers protest petition and also offers to record statements of himself or other witnesses then it is the duty of the trial Court to go into the reasons & evidence so collected during investigation, before proceeding under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C.. It has to be kept in mind that Section 202 Cr.P.C. provides ample room to the trial Court to inquire up to any extent. Any order of cognizance in such situation is not as simple as order of cognizance after positive police report. In the present matter, the police has already investigated the matter and already closed the chapter thus, the duty of trial Court is even more than what was fulfilled in present matter. 8. Any order of cognizance in such situation is not as simple as order of cognizance after positive police report. In the present matter, the police has already investigated the matter and already closed the chapter thus, the duty of trial Court is even more than what was fulfilled in present matter. 8. In any case, if there is any stay order or injunction order restraining transfer of any property then the effect of same is already provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and it would be hit by principle of lis-pendens. The remedy is available in very suit itself as the effect would be just bringing on record, the fact of transfer of property during pendency of pending litigation. Mere registration of a criminal case is not a solution thus, the present matter is a fit case wherein this Court have to step in to stop misuse of abuse of process of law. 9. Herein, the language of the FIR used by the complainant itself indicates that the assurance was given by Umakant and Mahesh Chandra but learned trial Court while passing the order opined that these persons have not committed any criminal act. In fact, no assurance was allegedly given by present petitioners but they have executed sale deed on the basis of revenue record. Thus, for taking cognizance under Section 420 IPC, ingredients of offence of cheating as provided under Section 415 IPC have to be satisfied. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and also the arguments as advanced before this Court clearly indicate that the trial Court has committed serious error in exercising its jurisdiction while passing the order impugned against the petitioners. 10. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the Misc. Petition is liable to be allowed and the same is allowed. The orders dated 25.06.2013 and 20.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara in Criminal Regular Case No.368/2013 and the Additional Sessions Judge, Nathdwara in Criminal Revision No.12/2014 are hereby quashed and set aside qua the petitioners. All proceedings pertaining to the FIR No.260/2011, Police Station Nathdwara qua the petitioners are hereby quashed and petitioners are discharged. No order as to costs.