J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Rule. Mr. A.N. Shah, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat. The respondent No. 2 - original first informant, although served with the notice issued by this Court, yet not chosen to appear either in person or through an Advocate. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 and 3 pray for quashing of the First Information Report being C.R. No. I-98 of 2014 registered with the Chowk Bazar Police Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case made out by the respondent herein in his First Information Report may be summarized as under:-

3. The petitioner No. 1 herein and the original accused No. 2 were the lawful owners of a property bearing Entry No. 1194 admeasuring 87.97.42 sq.mtrs. and Entry No. 599 admeasuring 7.52.03 sq.mtrs. situated in the City Ward No. 11, Surat, Taluka & District Surat. The said property had been given on rent past couple of years and the legal heirs of the contractual tenant, viz. Maheshbhai Purshottambhai, Rameshbhai Purshottambhai and Vijay Purshottambhai were in possession of the same as statutory tenants.

4. The petitioner No. 1 and the original accused No. 2 are the residents of Mumbai (Maharashtra). Since both the joint owners were residing at Mumbai, they had executed a power of attorney dated 4th October 2005 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 herein (original accused No. 3) for the purpose of maintenance of the property in question.

5. The respondent No. 2 was interested in buying the property from the petitioner No. 1 and the original accused No. 2 and, therefore, for that purpose, they started negotiations. It was ultimately decided that the respondent No. 2 would buy the property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 8,11,000-00 and pursuant to such a deal Rs. 2,11,000-00 as earnest money was paid by the respondent No. 2 to the owners by way of a cheque. An agreement to sell was executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 by the power of attorney holder of the owners i.e. the petitioner No. 2 herein, dated 2nd December 2005.

6. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that the balance amount of Rs. 6,00,000-00 was also paid to the owners on 7th June 2007 by way of a cheque and also by cash. According to the respondent No. 2, in all, the total sale consideration of Rs. 8,11,000-00 was paid to the owners of the property.

7. After the entire sale consideration was paid by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the owners, the respondent No. 2 requested for execution of a registered sale deed in his favour. However, at that point of time, the owners and the power of attorney holder stated before the respondent No. 2 that it was not possible to execute the sale deed as the tenants were not ready and willing to part with the possession of the property. According to the respondent No. 2, later on, he managed even with the tenants by paying a sum of Rs. 4 lac for the purpose of vacating the premises.

8. It is his case that on 10th January 2008, the vacant possession of the premises was taken over by him and a possession receipt was also issued in his favour.

9. According to the respondent No. 2, even thereafter, the owners and the power of attorney holder failed to execute a registered sale deed in his favour and, therefore, vide notice dated 26th February 2008 issued through an Advocate, the respondent No. 2 called upon the accused persons to execute the registered sale deed in his favour on the strength of the agreement to sell.

10. Despite service of notice, the accused persons did not execute the sale deed and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 filed a Special Civil Suit No. 32 of 2011 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Surat, for the specific performance of the contract on the basis of the agreement to sell.

11. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that kno