1. - By way of this revision petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 3rd May, 2005 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar on F.R. No. 2/2004 (in F.I.R. No.451/2004), Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar in Cr.Case No.177/2005 by which the Final Report filed by the police was rejected and learned trial court took cognizance on a protest petition filed by non-petitioner No.2 against the petitioners for offence under Sections 420 & 120-B I.P.C. and summoned the accused petitioners by non-bailable warrants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the non-petitioner No.2 filed an application before Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar on 5.11.2003 alleging therein that he is doing business of transport in Shop No.4-A situated at Miner Sri Ganganagar and Smt. Vidhya Devi is the owner of the shop. It is further alleged that he is tenant in this Shop at the ground floor and on the first floor Mehboob Khan used to work as Band Master. The non-petitioner No.2 complainant alleged that he entered into an agreement to sale with Smt. Vidhya Devi on 7th August, 1997 for the sale of Shop No.4 in consideration of Rs.2,85,000/-, out of which Rs.1,50,000/- was paid as token money and the rest of amount was paid by him on 28.8.1997. It is also stated that Mehaboob Khan entered into an agreement to sale with him for the purchase of First floor of this shop for a consideration of Rs.1,70,000/- and out of which Rs.75,000/- was received by him as earnest money. As per the complainant when he was shifting to Hanumangarh then Mehboob Khan made a proposal to him that he wants to take ground floor of the shop on rent so he mortgaged the ground floor of the shop for a consideration of Rs.1,25,000/- and possession was handed over to Mehboob Khan. The complainant further alleged that a criminal conspiracy took place in between Mehboob Khan and Smt.Vidhya Devi and in furtherance of that a sale deed was executed by Smt.Vidhya Devi in favour of Mehboob Khan's nephew Munwar Khan on 30.7.2003 and when this fact came to his knowledge he lodged a complaint with Superintendent of Police, who forwarded the same to S.H.O., Police Station, Kotwali, Sri Ganganagar. After registering the case, usual regular investigation took place. Ultimately police found that case is false and gave final report by treating the case of civil nature. The complainant non-petitioner No.2 filed protest petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing arguments on the protest petition took cognizance against the petitioners and rejected the prayer of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for accepting the final report vide order dated 3.5.2005.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that it is a case of civil nature and the proceeding pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate is nothing but abuse of process of the court hence deserves to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if any agreement was executed by Smt.Vidhya Devi with the complainant then he is very much entitled to file a suit for specific performance of contract against the petitioner. The learned trial court ought to have considered this aspect of the matter because in the investigation it has been found that dispute is of civil nature. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he executed an agreement to sale in favour of petitioner No.2 Mehboob Khan after taking money, whereas in this case the sale deed was executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of petitioner No.3. The police has also given this report that a compromise had taken place between the complainant and the petitioner No.1 in which he was agreed that Smt.Vidhya Devi will execute a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.2 directly. So from this evidence also no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is also contended that there is no original