Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.(Oral):- The contour of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that Pryag Raj Goel and Madan Mohan Goel sons of Ram Chander Goel, were the owners of the plot in dispute. They agreed to sell it to Tripta Devi (petitioner No.2), wife of Madan Lal (petitioner No.1), executed the agreement to sell dated 28.6.1999 (Annexure P3) and received a sum of Rs.12 lacs as earnest money. At the same time, they have also appointed her husband Madan Lal (petitioner No.1) as their general attorney, by way of deed of general power of attorney (Annexure P2). However, since complainant Bhopal Singh (respondent No.2) (for brevity “the complainant”) was stated to be in possession of the plot in question, so, the sale deed could not be executed between them.

2. Sequelly, thereafter, the petitioners have sold their all rights in the said plot, derived from Pryag Raj Goel and Madan Mohan Goel, for a total consideration of Rs.12 lacs, which they have received as earnest money, by virtue of agreement to sell (Annexure P3), to the complainant in lieu and received a sum of Rs.11 lacs in this respect, vide agreements dated 15/18.7.1999. Apprehending dispossession, the complainant filed a civil suit, bearing No.162 of 1999 for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Pryag Raj Goel, Madan Mohan Goel and Madan Lal (defendants therein) from interfering in his possession over the disputed plot. The suit was decreed, by virtue of ex parte judgment dated 9.12.1999 (Annexure P4). Meanwhile, the petitioners and complainant have amicably settled their dispute, acknowledging the complete surrender of all their (petitioners) rights in the plot in lieu of already paid Rs.11 lacs in favour of complainant and entered into compromise (Annexure P5). Still, the complainant and his wife filed another civil suit dated 5.7.2007 (Annexure P6) for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining Pryag Raj Goel, Madan Mohan Goel, Madan Lal (petitioner No.1), Smt.Tripta Devi (petitioner No.2) and one Umed Dahiya (defendants therein) from interfering in their peaceful possession over the plot in question.

3. Not only that, the complainant again made a complaint to the police with regard to the same subject matter contained in the plaint (Annexure P6), alleging therein that the petitioners have failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, embezzled a sum of Rs.11 lacs and thus cheated him. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint of the complainant, the present case was registered against the petitioners-accused, vide FIR No.406 dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC by the police of Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat in the manner described hereinabove.

4. Faced with the grave situation, the petitioners did not feel satisfied with the registration of the criminal case and preferred the instant petition to quash the impugned FIR (Annexure P1) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.

5. The case set up, in brief in so far as relevant, is that the petitioners did not have the intention to cheat or cause wrongful loss or breach of trust to the complainant and the bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any offence. They never forged any documents or caused loss to him. Moreover, since the subject matter of the FIR is directly and substantially in issue in the indicated civil suits, so, no offence is made out against the petitioners. Admitting the genuineness of the documents (Annexures P2, P3 & P5), it was claimed by them that as the complainant was in possession, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed in their favour. However, the peitioners sold their all rights in the plot in dispute, deriv