ORDER :

Chandra Kumar Songara, J.

Instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred on behalf of accused-petitioners with the prayer for quashing of F.I.R. No.269/2019 dt.10.10.2019 registered at Police Station Ganj District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406 and 120-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE , along with all subsequent proceedings.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners has submitted that the impugned F.I.R., along with all subsequent criminal proceedings, is prima-facie illegal & perverse. Counsel has further submitted that previously, a different F.I.R. was lodged against the complainant in 2014, wherein he was accused of committing theft of ancestral jewelry but the matter was compromised. Counsel has also submitted that on account of business relations, certain amount has been given, taken & then returned back to the complainant pertaining to business transactions. By taking advantage of these entries in the bank accounts, a false story has been prepared by the complainant with regard to agreement to sale. The complainant had broken the lock & removed costly items belonging to the petitioners from the alleged property-in-dispute i.e. Flat No.3 and connected premise, including bank passbook & jewelry items, for which an F.I.R. No.271/2019 came to be lodged by the petitioners. Counsel has contended that the complainant has also given notice of specific performance on 24.09.2019 pertaining to the false oral agreement to sale for which the petitioners have given reply on 03.10.2019 denying the existence of any such agreement and the complainant lodged the impugned F.I.R. on 10.10.2019. Therefore, the complainant wants to impart criminal colours to a civil dispute. Counsel has further contended that the Investigating Officer has also failed to consider that if the notice for specific performance is being given by complainant then how a criminal case would arise from such a situation. Pertaining to extortion & forcefully getting documents signed, a separate criminal complaint has also been lodged before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned F.I.R., along with all subsequent criminal proceedings, be quashed & set aside.

3. In support of his submissions, during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioners, has placed reliance upon the following judgements:- (i) Anand Kumar Mohatta & Another v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Another , AIR 2019 SC 210 , (ii) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar & Another , (2000) 4 SCC 168 and (iii) Dalip Kaur & Others v. Jagnar Singh & Another, (2009 AIR SC 3191.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, while opposing the submissions made herein-above, has submitted the factual report, which is taken on record.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant No.2, while opposing the submissions, has submitted that in the present F.I.R., after investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed against the accused-petitioner Nos.1 & 2, namely Smt. Sabri Devi Jain & Jeetmal Jain for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 406 & 120-B of I.P.C. and cognizance for aforesaid offences has also been taken by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No.2, Ajmer against them vide its order dated 09.02.2023. Counsel has further submitted that the Court of learned Additional District Judges No.1, Ajmer, v