1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners/original accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “CrPC”) praying to quash and set aside the complaint, being C.R. No. I-8/2009 registered with Sector 7 Police Station, Gandhinagar for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no.1 purchased agricultural land, bearing Survey No. 640/1 situated at Village: Bhoyan-Rathod District Gandhinagar comprising 3884 sqr. meters from the land owners viz., Gordhanbhai Manordas and others for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the petitioner no.1 made payment thereof of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque, bearing no. 452032 dated 09.02.2007 and the rest of Rs. 25,000/- was paid in cash. A sale deed was executed by said Arunbhai Manordas on his behalf as well as power of attorney of co-owners. That, in the land in question, one Jijaji Maganji Thakore was a tenant having possession for some time, and therefore, consent of the said person was also required to complete the sale transaction between the petitioners and the original land owners. In this view of the matter, in the sale deed executed, as referred to hereinabove, the said Jijaji was shown as a party confirming the sale deed, through his power of attorney, being petitioner no.2. That, after the execution of sale deed and transfer of land in favour of the petitioner no.1, amended entry no. 2450 was mutated on 22.07.2007 in revenue records being village form no. 6. But, the said entry was objected by the respondent no.2-complainant before the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar vide objection dated 03.12.2007 claiming that the land in question was sold to the respondent no.2 on 16.01.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 purchased other parcels of land at the said village i.e., Survey no. 654, 655/3, 637, 656, 638/1 from the respective land owners. However, the respondent no.2-complainant also claimed ownership in respect of the said parcels of land purportedly on the basis of got up power of attorney and sale deed of the land owners. The petitioner no.1 has initiated civil proceedings by filing civil suit for declaring the sale deed of respondent no.2 as null and void, one of the suits being Special Civil Suit No. 45/2008 is pending in the court of learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. It is also required to be noted that like wise, the respondent no.2 has also initiated civil proceedings against the petitioner no.1 for declaring the sale deed of the petitioner no.1 as null and void. However, the respondent no.2 has filed complaint alleging that the petitioner no.1 purchased the land from the original land owners without verifying the ownership of the respondent no.2-complainant in respect of the said land. The petitioner no.2, being son of the petitioner no.1 has been arraigned as an accused alleging that he sold the land in question to the petitioner no.1, having sold the same to the respondent no.2.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas A Barot appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Hardik A Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and learned APP Mr. KL Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Tejas A Barot appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed alleged offence and the present complaint is a sheer abuse of process of law as well as false, bogus and concocted. That, the alleged offence had taken place in the year 2007 and the complaint thereof is lodged in the month of January 2009. That, the dispute is purely of civil nature and is given cloak of criminality to exert undue pressure on the petitioners. That, the complaint does not contain any specific allegations which are required to be made against the accused persons. As per settled law, for want of specific allegations in the complaint, the accused cannot be prosecute