ORDER : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (Now, Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking quashing of FIR No. 512/2020 dated 11.12.2020, registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer, for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, along with all consequential proceedings, including the charge-sheet and the order of cognizance dated 26.11.2024. 2. The present dispute arises out of agreements to sell executed during the years 2017–2018 in respect of agricultural land situated at Village Kalidongri, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, limited to the undivided shares of the petitioners in Khasra Nos. 78/2, 80/1, 81/13, 81/6, 81/2 and 92. The petitioners, being co-khatedars, initially executed agreements to sell in favour of respondent No.2 on 20.12.2017, followed by subsequent agreements dated 05.01.2018, in respect of their respective shares. 3. Prior thereto, partition proceedings relating to the said land had culminated in a decree passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which the Revenue Appellate Authority affirmed vide order dated 11.03.2015. The said decree was thereafter challenged by way of a revision petition before the Board of Revenue, which was allowed vide order dated 05.02.2020, whereby the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Consequent to the remand, further proceedings were conducted before the revenue authorities and writ and review petitions were filed, resulting in interim orders restraining the alienation of the disputed property. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 26.11.2024. 4. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, arising out of agreements to sell and has been given a criminal colour to exert pressure. It is contended that they had agreed to sell only their undivided shares as co-khatedars and never represented that the land had been finally partitioned or was free from dispute. Learned counsel submits that the final decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, was very much in existence on the date of the agreements and had not been stayed and mere pendency of revenue proceedings or subsequent remand does not render reference to such a decree false or deceptive. Learned counsel submits that the final decree dated 11.12.2012 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, was very much in existence on the date of the agreements and had not been stayed and mere pendency of revenue proceedings or subsequent remand does not render reference to such a decree false or deceptive. It is argued that challenging the SDM order and entering into agreements during the pendency of such a challenge does not ipso facto constitute the offence of cheating. 5. It is further contended that respondent No.2 had full knowledge of the partition disputes, had purchased shares from other khatedars and had himself moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC before the Board of Revenue to be impleaded as a party; therefore, the allegation of concealment or dishonest inducement is unfounded. The FIR does not disclose any specific incident showing dishonest inducement at the time of execution of the agreements, and mere non-execution of the sale deed or pendency of revenue litigation cannot give rise to criminal liability. 6. Thus, it is argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings in the present case would be an abuse of the process of law, as the allegations overwhelmingly disclose a civil dispute which has been given a criminal colour. For these reasons, the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising out of the same may be quashed. 7. Contrarily, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the accused-petitioners in an organised and systematic manner, committed fraud upon the complainant and dishonestly induced him to deliver an amount exceeding Rs. 2.5 Crores. It is argued that the accused petitioners, from the very inception of the transaction, had a dishonest intention to cheat the respondent, as despite full knowledge of the subsisting disputes among the Khatedars, the petitioners agreed to sell the disputed property and deceitfully accepted a considerable amount from the respondent. 8. It is also contended that, under the agreement, the petitioners specifically stated that the property proposed to be sold had a clear title and that they had peaceful possession as per the decree passed in the revenue suit. It is further contended that such an assertion in the agreement is entirely false as the petitioners with the sole intention of extorting money, induced the respondent under the false pretext of clear title and possession. 9. It is further contended that such an assertion in the agreement is entirely false as the petitioners with the sole intention of extorting money, induced the respondent under the false pretext of clear title and possession. 9. It is also contended that, from the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the Revenue Board, it is apparent that the petitioners themselves challenged the final decree of the SDM Court dated 11.12.2012, which was expressly relied upon in the agreement, before the Revenue Appellate Authority and thereafter before the Revenue Board. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 11.03.2015, against which the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Revenue Board, Ajmer and by order dated 05.02.2020, the Revenue Board allowed the revision and set aside the decree of the SDM Court. 10. It is vehemently argued that on the date of the agreement, i.e., 05.01.2018, the revision petition filed by the petitioners themselves was pending before the Revenue Board, clearly showing their dissatisfaction with the SDM decree, and that such conduct on the part of the petitioners falls within the ambit of cheating. It is also contended that the decree referred to in the agreement no longer subsists, having been set aside, rendering both the petitioners and the respondents incapable of acting upon it. The petitioners neither had a clear title to the property nor had possession. 11. It is further contended that multiple litigations were pending, due to which the registration authority declined to register the sale deed in favour of the respondent. It is also claimed that the other Khatedars, in collusion with the petitioners, challenged the order of the Revenue Board, and one Khatedar, Sukhdev, filed Writ Petition No. 5381/2020, in which the operation of the Revenue Board's order dated 05.02.2020 was stayed. 12. It is also contended that vide order dated 26.11.2024, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3 took cognizance against the petitioners. Despite the lapse of nearly 14 months, the petitioners neither challenged the said cognizance order nor sought any amendment in the present petition, and the cognizance order dated 26.11.2024 has attained finality. 13. It is further contended that in another FIR No. 313/2020 lodged by the respondent in respect of an identical land transaction, Sampat w/o Kalu Lal challenged the said FIR by filing Criminal Misc. 13. It is further contended that in another FIR No. 313/2020 lodged by the respondent in respect of an identical land transaction, Sampat w/o Kalu Lal challenged the said FIR by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 1347/2021, and a Co-ordinate Bench, vide order dated 26.02.2024, disposed of the petition after noting that the police had already filed a charge-sheet. The present case is identical. 14. It is also contended that mere pendency of civil proceedings is no ground for quashing criminal proceedings and that, prima facie, there is sufficient material on record to show that an offence is made out against the petitioners and this Court cannot hold a mini trial to determine whether the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating or not, as such determination lies within the domain of the Trial Court. Therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 15. Heard and perused the material available on record. 16. It is undisputed that in the present FIR, the police have already filed a charge-sheet against the petitioners and that the cognizance order has already been passed. Furthermore, the specific facts that the petitioners have challenged the partition decree, including the legal grounds for their objections, are not detailed or mentioned in the sale agreement. Additionally, the record clearly shows multiple ongoing civil litigations among the co-sharers regarding the disputed land, highlighting the complex legal disputes involved and whether the petitioners have cheated the respondent or not is a question of trial. It would not be appropriate for this Court to comment on the facts, as such comments may affect or prejudice the Trial Court, which is conducting the criminal trial against the petitioners. 17. On the issue that the dispute is primarily of a civil nature, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. , (2013) 2 SCC 801 , has observed as under:- "26. At this stage, we may usefully note that sometimes a case may apparently look to be of civil nature or may involve a commercial transaction but such civil disputes or commercial disputes in certain circumstances may also contain ingredients of criminal offences and such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil disputes . In this context, we may reproduce a passage from Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [ (2009) 8 SCC 751 ] “8. In this context, we may reproduce a passage from Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [ (2009) 8 SCC 751 ] “8. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes . (See G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] and Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [ (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188])” 18. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present criminal miscellaneous petitions and the same are hereby dismissed.