The power to quash an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is limited to cases where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable, and there is no basis for proceeding against the accused.

1. - Petitioner Dushyant Singh by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenged the registration of FIR No.170/2008 and further investigation thereto Criminal Case lodged against him under Sections 420 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Pali.

2. The facts leading to the present petitioner are as under:-

That on 12.11.2008 complainant respondent No.2 filed an FIR in Police Station Kotwali, Pali alleging therein that on 09.09.2007 the petitioner aggrieved to sell the land measuring about 170-175 bighas situated at Khasra No.975 to 985 to the complainant respondent No.2. Agreement was executed in the presence of Amrit Parihar resident of Bali, Amar Chand Jain resident of Bewar, Rajendra Kumar Jain and Abdul Vaheed Ansari. It was averred in the FIR that in terms of agreement, the transaction could not take place and after the long deliberations in compliance to the agreement petitioner agreed to sale the lands in different parts. Land measuring to 153 bighas was sold to the complainant through four different sale deeds. The complainant stated in the FIR that 26 bighas of land situated in front side and adjacent to the main road was not sold to him by executing sale deed in his favour. Complainant alleged that accused persons named in the FIR have refused to execute the sale deed with regard to said fifth part of the land and also cancelled the power of attorney executed in favour of Dushyant Singh. The complainant stated that the accused person with dishonest intention has committed fraud with the complainant. On the aforesaid information police registered the above FIR as narrated earlier.

3. Aggrieved by the registration of the above FIR, the petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR No.470/2008 lodged in Police Station Kotwali Distt. Pali and further investigation.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the bare reading of the facts averred in the FIR makes it clear that facts as stated does not at all make out any case or any offence being committed by the present petitioner. The facts as averred in the FIR at the most discloses a case 3 for breach of agreement which cause for only civil liability. However, the respondent No.2 without adopting the proper course has filed the present FIR giving a shape of criminal offence. Thus the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 mere abuse of process of court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that facts stated in the FIR do not establish the basic ingredients for the offence of cheating as alleged against the petitioner in view of the provisions of Section 415 of the IPC liability on the petitioner, if any, arising by the breach of agreement is civil in nature and not criminal in any manner because in the present case also the complainant has failed to establish any dishonest intention of the petitioner at the time of execution of agreement.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(1) AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 59, V.Y. Jose & Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr.

(2) RLW 1999 (1) SC 125, Nageshwar Prasad Singh @ Sinha v. Narayan Singh & Anr.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that conduct of the petitioner itself shows that while executing the agreement his intention was to cheat the respondent No.2 and, therefore, intentionally executed the sale deed for rest of the property except the land measuring to 26 bighas which is adjacent to the main road which is in prime location. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while advancing his argument relied upon the following judgments:-

(1) 2000 Cr.L.R. (SC) 765, Mahaveer Prasad Gupta (Shri) & Anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted the copy of order passed by this court on the anticipatory bail application filed the present petitioner under Sectio