1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioners who are arraigned as accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.165/2014 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They seek to quash the final report.

2. The brief facts that could be culled out from the pleadings and records would show that the petitioners are the owners of certain extent of property in Erumapetti village. The de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkanchery alleging that on 2.9.2013 the petitioners have entered into an agreement for sale of their properties to him and his brother for a total sale consideration of 7,10,00,000/-. An advance amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/-was also received on the very same day. The period fixed for performance of the sale agreement was 31.12.2013. But the petitioners failed to execute the sale deed in their favour as promised and also failed to return the advance amount received by them. Though the de facto complainant approached him for the advance amount on failure to execute the sale deed, two cheques were handed over to them making them to believe that sufficient amount are in the account and he could encash the same. But the cheques were dishonoured when presented for encashment for the reason that the signatures in the cheques were incomplete. Since the intention of the petitioners was to cheat the de facto complainant he has lodged the complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Wadakkanchery which was forwarded to the police, Erumapetty and FIR No.165/2014 was registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation the final report was filed before the Magistrate Court against these petitioners. The petitioners have approached this Court to quash the final report filed against them contending that the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and hence the criminal proceedings registered against them on the basis of the averments in the complaint which is of civil nature is only an abuse of the process of the court and the same is liable to be quashed exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

3. Heard Sri.K.Ramkumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. G. Sreekumar, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Smt. M.K Pushpalatha the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

4. The case of the de facto complainant is that the first petitioner is the owner of certain properties which he obtained as per document Nos.2873/2012 and 2875/2012 of SRO, Erumapetty. The second petitioner is the owner of another set of property which she obtained by virtue of document No.2874/2012. The third petitioner is also in possession and enjoyment of certain properties as per document No.2872/2012. While they were enjoying the properties, they approached him expressing their willingness to sell their properties. The de facto complainant agreed to purchase the properties and an agreement for sale was executed on 02.09.2013 whereby they agreed to sell those properties for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,10,00,000. His further case is that the agreement was to execute the sale deed on or before 31.12.2013 and an advance amount of Rs.2,25,00,000/-was received by them on the very same day. Though he was ready to get the assignment deed executed in his favour after paying the balance sale consideration as agreed, they sought for extension of time for performance of the sale agreement and demanded further amount for execution of the sale deed. As there was failure on the side of the petitioners to execute the document a lawyer notice was issued on 29.12.2013. Thereafter the petitioners approached him and expressed their willingness to return the advance amount with interest. He agreed for the same and thus the sale agreement was cancelled. For r