Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral) - The present petition has been filed by petitioners Teja Singh and Balwinder Singh for quashing of FIR No.97, dated 07.07.2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, registered at Police Station, Dirbha, District Sangrur, and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom being the abuse of process of law.

2. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant, Amrik Singh, Jagdev Singh, Gurmail Singh and Malkiat Singh were in an unauthorized possession of a piece of land measuring 86 kanals and 5 marlas. The real owner of the said piece of land were Gurtej Kaur, Iqbal Singh @ Parampal Singh, Dhirpal Singh, Paramjit Singh and others. They had entered into an agreement to sell with Teja Singh (petitioner No.1) on 12.06.2009 regarding the above said piece of land. They had received Rs.2 lacs as earnest money out of the total sale consideration of Rs.8,75,000/- (Rupee Eight lacs and seventy five thousand). The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30.12.2009 in favour of petitioner No.1 and his other co-purchasers. Since a dispute regarding the mutation of the said land was pending before the revenue authorities, therefore, the sale deed could not be executed in favour of the petitioners and his co-purchasers. The mutation was sanctioned by Assistant Collector, First Grade, Sangrur, vide his order, dated 27.02.2012 in favour of the executants of the agreement to sell. When the sale deed could not be executed on the basis of an agreement to sell, dated 12.06.2009, then the owners of the above stated land executed General Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioners on 14.06.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners executed the sale deed on 10.04.2012. At a later stage, the petitioners learnt that one of the executants of the General Power of Attorney had died before execution of the sale deed, dated 10.04.2012 and, as such, the petitioners filed an application before the Collector, Sub-Division, Sunam, disclosing the bona fide mistake committed by the petitioners and further prayed that approximately 6 kanals share of Paramjit Singh (since deceased) be not included in the sale-deed, dated 10.04.2012. It was further submitted that the informant had nothing to do with the ownership of the land in question, which was sold by the petitioners vide sale deed, dated 10.04.2012 and, as such, he was not competent to lodge the FIR in question. He further submitted that respondent Nos.3 and 4, who were sons of Paramjit Singh (since deceased) had given the affidavits, dated 06.08.2012 in favour of the petitioners stating that they had received the entire sale consideration from the petitioners with regard to the share of the above stated land belonging to their father and they had no objection if the land was sold by the petitioners vide sale deed, dated 10.04.2012 and the petitioners had not committed any fraud with the informant side or any other person. It has also been submitted that petitioners were not aware at the time of execution of the sale deed, dated 10.04.2012, that Paramjit Singh, who had executed the General Power of Attorney, dated 14.06.2010, had already expired. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Md. Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and anr, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 369.

3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-informant submitted that the petitioners had not only committed cheating but also committed forgery with an intention to commit cheating and, as such, respondent No.2-informant was competent to report the matter to the police; the disputed question of facts cannot be decided in a petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.; after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.)