Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No. 2 as well as learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 24.1.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 2312 of 2011, whereby and where under, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406• of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on' behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant was a monthly tenant in a building belonging to M/s Ram Das and Son. The other day these petitioners who had been engaged by the owner of the building to construct a r(1ultistoried building as well as owner came to him and told that they are proposing to construct a multi-storied building over that piece of land over which building was exiting in which he was tenant. He was asked to vacate the premises on a condition that he will be provided with sufficient accommodation at the rate of Rs. 3501per square feet. When the proposal was accepted by the complainant, af