The High Court has jurisdiction to quash an FIR even after a charge sheet has been filed if the case is covered by one of the clauses of law laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, (1992) suppl (1) SCC 335, such as where the criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

1. - This Misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing FIR No. 570/2012 registered at Police Station Sanganer for offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

2. The respondent No.4 Alka Mishra filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.26, Jaipur Metropolitan against the present petitioners which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with the allegations in the FIR that the present petitioners has leased the property by registered sale deed on 5.11.2009 to the complainant and she started a factory for preparing Almirah. 60 cheques has also been taken by the accused persons in lieu of the rent. Babulal Saini and Mithulal Saini on 30.5.2012 have demanded the rent from the complainant, thereafter the complainant asked the present petitioners to show their title deeds which was never shown to the complainant. The premises has been wrongly shown as commercial premises and it was rented to the complainant on the pretext that petitioner No.2 is the owner of the land whereas premises belongs to Babulal and Mithulal and by cheating, 20 lacs has been taken from the complainant.

3. The contention of the present petitioners is that by way of an agreement to sell, the land was purchased from Pancha etc. by Panchulal and Gulabdevi. Gulab Devi is the mother of petitioner No.1 and physical possession of the land was also handed over to the purchasers. Thereafter, JDA had acquired some part of land and before the Land Acquisition Officer Babulal has submitted that Panchulal and his other brothers had sold his land to Gulab Devi and Gulab Devi is in continuing physical possession over the land. The amount of compensation be handed over to Gulab Devi and the Land Acquisition Officer had disbursed the compensation to Gulab Devi. Thereafter, family members have divided their family property and property came in possession of petitioner No.1. Babulal has also executed a sale-deed in favour of petitioner No.1 and thereafter by registered lease deed, property was landed to complainant in the year 2009. For some time, relations between the parties remained cordial but thereafter the complainant became defaulter in payment of rent. The present petitioners have lodged a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short NI Act) and respondent also moved before the Rent Tribunal, in the backdrop of this, this false FIR has been lodged. From the documents, it is clear that the property belongs to accused petitioners, they had not committed any forgery. Respondent No.2 is still running the business in the property and no forgery or cheating has been committed with anyone. Property is commercial in nature and it has been admitted by the complainant respondent No.2 in Para No.12 in the petition filed by respondent No.2 before the Rent Tribunal, hence allegations are false; dispute is of civil nature and to pressurise this false complaint has been made. The present petitioners have been arrested and during course of arguments of bail, Mithulal has also filed affidavit in favour of present petitioners that present petitioners are the owner of the land, hence initiation of proceedings is abuse of the process of the Court and be quashed.Per contra, the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent is that petitioner No.2 is not the owner of the property and land is still agricultural in nature and without disclosing the true facts, rent deed has been executed charge-sheet is ready to be filed, hence proceedings should not be quashed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned FIR as well as the documents produced by the petitioners.

5. The first contention of the respondent is that investigation is complete and charge-sheet is ready to be filed, hence this petition for quashing the FIR is not maintainable. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 20