ORDER :

1. Instant petition seeks quashing of a first information report (FIR), dated 26.9.2018, lodged by the respondent no.4 (informant) against the petitioners, as Case Crime No. 232 of 2018, at P.S. Lalkurti, District Meerut, under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 IPC,.

2. As parties are represented and affidavits have been exchanged between petitioners and the informant, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally decided at the admission stage itself.

3. We have heard Shri S. K. Srivastava for the petitioners; learned AGA for the respondents 1 to 3; Shri Pushkar Mehrotra for the informant (respondent no. 4); and have perused the record.

4. To have a better understanding of the controversy, a brief narration of the background facts, as regards which there is no dispute between the parties, would be apposite.

5. The petitioner no.1 is the husband of petitioner no.2 and the petitioners 3 and 4 are sons of the petitioners 1 and 2. The petitioners are owners of property bearing House No. C-20, Jawahar Quarter, Meerut. A portion of this property, having an area of 139.35 sq meter, was subject matter of a registered agreement for sale, dated 12.02.2018, (Annexure C.A.1), executed by petitioners 1 & 2 in favour of informant and his wife. As per record, while executing the agreement, the petitioner no.1 (Prabodh Mohan Tiwari) signed for self and as power of attorney holder of his two sons, namely, Vidit Mohan (petitioner no.3) and Prakhar Mohan (petitioner no.4). According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, sale consideration was fixed at Rs. 90 lacs, out of which Rs. 32 lacs was provided by way of earnest money, and the sale deed was to be executed by 31.5.2018. The title of the agreement, as also internal page 7 of the agreement, suggests that possession was to be provided at the time of execution of sale deed.

6. There arose a dispute between the parties. On 29.05.2018, the respondent no.4 and his wife instituted suit no.423 of 2018 (Annexure No.2) in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Meerut for specific performance of the agreement. Interestingly, in paragraph 5 of the plaint, which is at page 28 of the paper book, it is stated that, after execution of agreement for sale, possession of two rooms in the property was delivered by the defendants. On the other hand, the petitioners, on 28.08.2018, instituted SCC Suit No.29 of 2018 (Annexure No.3) against the respondent no.4 and his wife for rent and eviction from that portion by explaining the agreement for sale as a document of security in lieu of money taken from the informant and his wife to return loan taken by vendors from a Bank. It was also claimed that the informant and his wife entered into possession not in part performance of the agreement but as tenant thereof.

7. At this stage, the impugned FIR was lodged through an application under section 156(3) CrPC. The thrust of the allegations in the impugned FIR is that when the informant along with his wife went to the house of the petitioner no.1 on 20.04.2018, in connection with execution of sale deed, he met the elder son of petitioner no.1, namely, Vidit Mohan (petitioner no.3), who claimed that the power of attorney executed by him in favour of his father only enabled purchase of property and not its sale. It was thus alleged that the petitioner no.1 had made a false representation that he had authority to execute sale deed on behalf of his sons. It was also alleged that by making such false representation the informant and his wife were cheated by the petitioners 1 and 2 in conspiracy with their sons i.e. petitioners 3 and 4.

8. Petitioners have challenged the impugned FIR by claiming that already the respondent no. 4 and his wife have instituted Original Suit no. 423 of 2018 for specific performance of the agreement for sale and the petitioners have also instituted an SCC Suit No. 29 of 2018 for ejectment of the respondent no. 4 and his wife from the house in disput