Hon’ble Vipin Sinha, J.—Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Prashant Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed for quashing of the proceedings of case No. 4441/9 of 2007, arising out of case crime No. 318 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, police station Civil Lines, District Meerut pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut.

2. Brief Facts of the Present Case.

The contention as raised in the affidavit filed in support of the application is to the effect that opposite party No. 2 has lodged an FIR against the applicants and as per the FIR, the land of opposite party No. 2 being khasra No. 540 and 540Ba is situated at village Amhera Adipur, Police Station Inchauli, District Meerut. Applicant No. 1 had executed an agreement to sell dated 12.2.2007 in respect of land bearing khasra No. 540A, 549Ba in favour of applicant No. 2 in a fraudulent manner. During the investigation, the statement of opposite party No. 2 was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and in his statement, he has reiterated his version as stated in the FIR.

3. It is relevant to state here that during the investigation, opposite party No. 2 also supplied photostat copies of two registered agreements to sell executed by Sri Hari Bhushan, father of opposite party No. 2 in favour of applicant No. 1 on 28.12.1981 in respect of same plots of land.

4. The Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, police station Civil Lines, District Meerut on 29.9.2007 before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut. On that charge-sheet a cognizance was taken by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Meerut on 25.10.2007 in case No. 4441/9 of 2007.

5. After submission of chargsheet, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut passed an order for further investigation in the present case. In further investigation, the Investigating Officer opined that the applicants have not committed any offence and matter is purely of a civil in nature.

6. However, being aggrieved against the charge-sheet and the cognizance taken, the present application has been filed.

A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 wherein it has been stated that the father of opposite party No. 2 is the owner of the land being khasra No. 540A and 540B which is situated in village Amehra Adipur District Meerut and the father of opposite party No. 2, namely, Sri Hari Bhushan had executed an agreement to sell on 29.10.77 and 28.12.81 to applicant No. 1 i.e. Dharampal Singh. It is further stated that the name of the father of opposite party No. 2 is entered in Khatuni in plot No. 540 A and 540B. A certain time is given to applicant No. 1 in the said agreement for sale and in failure of sale-deed the agreement of sale-deed would be cancelled. It is further stated that the applicant No. 1 has never executed the sale-deed and, therefore, the alleged sale-deed has been cancelled.

7. It is further alleged that applicant No. 1 fraudulently represented himself to be the owner of executed an agreement to sell dated 12.2.2007 land being khasra No. 540A and 540B in favour of applicant No. 2 in a fraudulent manner. Applicant No. 1 shown himself to be the landlord and owner of that land in page 5 of the agreement dated 12.2.2007 and it was submitted that the applicants have played fraud and thus, they cannot escape the criminal liability.

8. Written arguments have been filed by both the sides which have been taken on record.

9. On the basis of the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants, Sri Amit Kumar Srivastrava, learned counsel for the applicants submits that from the side of opposite party No. 2 a civil suit for injunction being original suit No. 66 of 2007 was filed befo