By the Court.—Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.S. Pandey, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused record.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. Dated 11.06.2016 in Case Crime No. 361 of 2016 under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Sector-58, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Prosecution case in brief is that F.I.R. was lodged by informant, respondent No. 3, Surendra against petitioners alleging that an agreement to sell was executed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Brahm Singh and Budhram on 7.5.2014 in his favour by which it was agreed that sale-deed would be executed of Khasra No. 324 situated in Village Bishanpur, District Gautam Budh Nagar within three months for total consideration of Rs. 39 lacs for which he also made a part payment of Rs. 11 lacs and further gave Rs. 5 lacs to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. Petitioner No. 3, Sant Ram is a witness of said agreement to sell. It is further alleged that when respondent No. 3 required petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 to execute sale-deed, he came to know that said land has been acquired by NOIDA authorities, hence he lodged F.I.R. against petitioners for the aforesaid offences at the concerned police station.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that it was the respondent No. 3 who has not come forward to honour the agreement to sell and the allegation of respondent No. 3 that plot in question has been acquired by NOIDA authorities is absolutely incorrect as the same being Abadi land, the NOIDA authorities have not acquired the same. He submitted that petitioners are still ready to execute the sale-deed provided terms and conditions of agreement to sell is honoured by respondent No. 3.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has vehemently opposed argument of learned counsel appearing for petitioners and has submitted that as the land in question has been acquired by NOIDA authorities and he was also not informed about said fact and Rs. 11 lacs has been given by him to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and further Rs. 5 lacs has also been parted with but petitioners themselves have not come forward to execute the sale-deed in view of agreement to sell entered into between the parties. In spite of the fact that land has been acquired by NOIDA authorities, petitioners played fraud upon respondent No. 3 and they fraudulently and dishonestly have taken Rs. 16 lacs from him knowing fully that said agreement to sell cannot be executed.

6. The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(5) ADJ 280 (FB), reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 Cr LJ 569, that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case as laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, attended with further elaboration that observations and directions contained in Joginder Kumar’s case (Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, (1994) 4 SCC 260, contradict extension to the power of the High Court to stay arrest or to quash an F.I.R. under article 226 and the same are intended to be observed in compliance by the Police, the breach whereof, it has been further elaborated, may entail action by way of departmental proceeding or action under the contempt of Court Act. The Full Bench has further held that it is not permissible to appropriate the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution as an alternative to anticipatory bail which is not invokable in the State of U.P. attended with further observation that what is not permissible to do directly canno