The main legal point established in the judgment is that a civil dispute cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court, and the ingredients of the alleged offences must be made out for an FIR to be sustainable.

ORDER

1. The petitioners have sought for quashement of FIR No.0034/2022 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC on the grounds that:

'(1) to settle a civil dispute, respondent No.2 has opted for a criminal proceeding which is not permissible in law;

(2) the ingredients of none of the offences for which FIR was registered are made out, hence the criminal prosecution would be abuse of the process of the Court.'

2. The background of this case is that respondent No.2 entered into separate agreements with the petitioners from 31.3.2013 onwards to purchase their individual share in plot No. 5089, 5096, 5097, 5098 and 5103. In each of the agreements, it is specifically mentioned that for the plots above, a case is pending before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur, the petitioners would get the said case disposed of and thereafter get their respective names mutated in the revenue records and then sent a notice of these developments through registered post to respondent No.2. On receipt of notice from the petitioners, respondent No.2 would make payment of the remaining consideration money within six months and get the sale deed registered. If the petitioners would not abide by the terms and conditions between the parties, respondent No.2 would have a right to get the sale deed registered by order of the Court. If the respondent No.2 would fail to get the documents registered within six months aforesaid, the petitioners would have a right to utilise the earnest consideration money and the agreement would be deemed to have been cancelled automatically. Copy of the agreements are on the record.

3. The petitioners sent registered legal notice to respondent No.2 from 12.7.2016 onwards separately stating therein that SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5425/1999 pending before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench Jaipur against the order of Board of Revenue has already been decided on 11.4.2012 which is known to respondent No.2 Kamal. Thereafter, mutation case No. 2993 dated 24.12.2013 and other mutation cases were registered which is also known to the complainant. The petitioners asked the complainant to make payment of the remaining consideration money and get the registered sale deeds otherwise the agreement would be deemed to be cancelled. The complainant did not send any reply to those legal notices, thereafter it is stated that the petitioners sold a portion of the land to some other person. For that the complainant got FIR No. 36/2019 registered on 16.1.2019 with Kekri Police Station. The police after investigation of the case submitted negative report and the case is pending for hearing on protest petition of the complainant. Later on, the petitioners sold other portions of the land which was subject matter of agreement to some other person then the present FIR was lodged.

4. According to the First Information Report, the complainant had entered into agreement to purchase the referred plots with the petitioners and the part consideration money was paid and it was decided that the petitioners would get their names recorded in the revenue records and thereafter sent a notice of the same to the complainant and the complainant would within six months got the sale deed executed after paying the remaining consideration money. It is specifically mentioned in FIR as to in which mutation case, who of the petitioners was recorded with respect to which number of the plot. The allegation is that one sister and the mother of some of the petitioners were co-sharers, were not mutated in the process of mutation of names of the petitioners on the aforesaid plots. Fraudulent intention was there of the petitioners in not getting the name of the petitioners' sister and mother recorded. Allegation is that petitioners misappropriated the part consideration money paid to them and they have sold the land to some other person just to defraud the complainant.

5. On the basis of the background aforesaid and averments in the FIR, learned counsel for the peti