The central legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution in exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the requirement to demonstrate fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offense of cheating under Section 420 of I.P.C.

2. By taking aid of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., petitioners had filed this petition for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them for an offence punishable under Sections 406,420 and 120-B of I.P.C. and consequential order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vidisha on 23.08.2007 by which he directed the Supdt. of Police, Vidisha to investigate the same under Section 156 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 entered into an, agreement to sell over an area of 9.95 hectares of Survey No. 171 /2/2 situated at Village Khemkheda, Tehsil and District Vidisha in favour of respondents No. 1 and 2 for a consideration of Rs.9 lakhs on the ground that he is exclusive owner and title holder of the said land and he need money for his personal necessity. On 29.07.2003, he executed an agreement with the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide Annexure P/3. As per agreement, on 29.07.2003 he received Rs.4 lakhs through. draft and cheque from the respondents No.1 and 2. The balance amount of Rs.5 lakhs was to be paid on or before 28.07.2004, with a condition that he will execute the sale deed on or before 28.07.2004 and possession of the said land will be delivered to them. It is also averred that in case the petitioner No.1 failed to execute the sale deed, then respondents No. 1 and 2 get it executed through Court at the risk and cost of the petitioner No. 1. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are sons of petitioner No. 1.

4. On 23.08.2007 (Annexure P/1), the respondents No. 1 and 2-complainants filed a private complaint under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. on the ground that petitioners executed an agreement to sell vide agreement dated 29.07.2003 in respect of the above mentioned area for a consideration of Rs. 9 lakhs and Rs.4 lakhs was paid through draft and cheque at the time of execution of the agreement and rest of the amount was to be paid on or before 28.07.2004. The respondents No.1 and 2 time and again asked the petitioner No. 1 to execute the sale deed in their favour but no sale deed was executed. In the month of December 2004, the petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.2 and 3, who are sons of petitioner No.1 jointly filed an application under Section 178 of M.P. Land Revenue Code 1959 for partition of the said land. The Naib Tehsildar vide order dated 24.01.2005 (Annexure P/4) allowed the application and partitioned the land in question between them. It is averred that this partition was effected just to defeat the agreement to sell executed by the petitioner No. 1 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2. In para-5 of the complaint, it is averred that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, petitioners No.2 and 3 were also present and in their presence, part of consideration was paid. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 did not honour the agreement in spite of the fact that complainant visited him on 31.01.2005 and 30.04.2007 and requested him for execution of sale deed but no sale deed was executed. According to the complainants, the petitioners thus have cheated them. On the basis of the above fact, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed for investigation under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset made statement at bar that he does not want to press this application on behalf of the petitioner No.1, Tej Singh and, therefore, the application for quashing the investigation and private complaint against the Petitioner No. 1, Tej Singh is dismissed, as not pressed.

6. In respect of the petitioners No.2 and 3. he submits that they were not party to the agreement to sell dated 29.07.2003 nor they were present at the time of execution of the agreement nor in the agreement, it is averred that they agreed for execution of the agreement to sell in favour of complainants and, therefore, no proceeding can be drawn against them.

7.