The court emphasized that the continuation of a criminal proceeding would constitute an abuse of process of the court when the FIR lacked the essential elements of the alleged offence.

ORDER

1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR No.219/2017 registered at Police Station Dabi, District Bundi for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 120-B IPC and proceedings pursuant thereto.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 lodged a false FIR against the petitioners by giving a criminal colour to it and case pertains to civil nature. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that a bare reading of FIR clearly disclose that no prima-facie case is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that instead of filing suit for specific performance, complainant had misused the police machinery and want to built pressure against the petitioners by corrupt practices. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that this court had heard the petitioners at length on 18.01.2019 and passed the interim stay in favour of the petitioners and directed to deposit Rs.11 lac by way of demand draft. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioners had given the notice to the complainant and also sent the demand draft of Rs.5 lac and petitioners had also filed a civil suit for cancellation of agreement. So, FIR be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments: (1) Prof. R. K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr. reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739; (2) Thermax Limited & Ors. Vs. K. M. Johny & Ors. reported in (2011) 13 SCC 412; (3) Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr. reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706; (4) B. Suresh Yadav Vs. Sharifa Bee & Anr. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 107; (5) Vinod Natesan Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 401 and (6) Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 228.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that respondents were ready to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement but petitioners cheated the respondents and sold the disputed land to other person. So, the petitioners had done cheating with the respondents. So, petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed and alternatively also prayed that if petition filed by the petitioners is accepted then amount deposited by the petitioners be released to the respondents and liberty be given to the respondents for filing of civil proceeding against the petitioners.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

6. It is an admitted position that agreement was executed between the petitioners & respondents and respondents had paid Rs.11 lac for part payment of agreement. As per contention of the respondents, they were ready to comply the agreement but petitioners had sold the disputed land to other person. In my considered opinion, remedy available to the respondents for filing of suit for specific performance. A bare reading of FIR does not disclose ingredients of the cheating. So, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will constitute an abuse of process of the court. So, FIR against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

7. The Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The FIR No.219/2017 registered at Police Station Dabi, District Bundi for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 120-B IPC is quashed.

8. Office is directed to release the amount deposited by the petitioners to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are at liberty to file a civil proceeding against the petitioners.

9. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.