JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. This petition, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by three petitioners, namely (i) Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya, (ii) Smti. Shashi Natani and (iii) Shri Rajesh Natani @ Rajesh Kumar Natani, all are from Jaipur, Rajasthan, for quashing the FIR of Pasighat Police Station Case No. 227/2017, under section 420/120B/34 IPC.

2. It is to be mentioned here that - Pasighat Police Station Case No. 227/2017, under section 420/120B/34 IPC has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by one Anil Kumar Agarwal, on 15th November, 2017 for committing the offence of fraud, cheating and other criminal activities, against the three petitioners and also against three others, namely Shri Kishan Badaya, Smti. Teena Badaya and Smti. Sushila Devi Badaya.

3. The factual background, leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:

“On 02.03.2016, one Rajesh Natani and Shri Chandra Mohon Badaya has contracted the family of the complainant-Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal, seeking a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore) being the consideration of a landed property/building, measuring 40 feet x 75 feet between plot No. A-47 to A-55, at Sikar House, Near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Accordingly, the said amount was deposited through Vijaya Bank, Pasighat Branch to ICICI Bank and SBBJ Bank in their bank account, in four installments, @ Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Tewnty Five Lacs), each, on 19.07.2016, in the name of Shri Ram Enterprise (Proprietor Shri Chandra Mohan Badaya), on 20.07.2016, in the name of A.R. Properties and Coloniser (Proprietor Chandra Mohan Badaya), on 22.07.2016 in the name of Smti. Sashi Natani, and on 25.07.2016 in the name of Chandra Mohan Badaya respectively. But, when the complainant had visited the said place and premises, the accused persons refused to hand over and exchanges the aforesaid premises to him. Inspite of his repeated request the accused persons failed to fulfill the conditions given by them and all the accused were in a conspiracy to defraud him. And thereby the accused persons cheated him and caused financial loss and mental agony to him. Then being left with no other option he lodged the complaint with the O/C Pasighat Police Station. Then registering a case, being Pasighat P.S. Case No. 227/2017, under sections 420/120B/34 IPC, the O/C Pasighat P.S. had endorsed S.I. T. Buker, to investigate the same.”

4. When investigation is being carried out, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition, for quashing the said FIR, by invoking its jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. on the following grounds:

(i) Even if the entire allegation made in the FIR are taken in their face value, no ingredients of the offence under section 420 IPC, not to speak of a cognizable offence, is made out against the petitioners.

(ii) The dispute is civil in nature giving raise to civil liability and even after expiry of four years of payment no claim has been made, which goes to show that there is no liability.

(iii) There is delay of 15 months, after the last transaction, in lodging the FIR on 15.11.2017.

(iv) There is no assertion that the petitioners have fraudulently or dishonestly induced the informant to pay the money.

(v) There is suppression of material facts, and with malafide intention, the case has been filed by the complainant. Therefore, and also in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp. (1) SCC 335, it is contended to allow the petition.

5. I have Mr. Biswajit Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. P.P. for the state of Arunachal Pradesh.

6. Mr. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has reiterated the grounds as aforesaid and also submits that suppressing material facts the petitioner has filed the FIR. Mr. Prasad submits that after receipt of the amount, as mentioned in the FIR, the petitioner has made payment for a sum of Rs. 54,