ORDER
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners with the prayer that FIR No. 372/2000 dated 4-11-2000 of Police Station, Makrana District Nagaur for the offence under sections 406 and 420 IPC be quashed.
2. It arises in the following circumstances :–
One Zamil Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) lodged a report, on 4-11 -2000 at Police Station Makrana District Nagaur stating inter alia that on 13-9-1998 accused petitioners sold land mentioned in the report for consideration of Rupees 7,25,000/- to the complainant and the complainant paid that amount to the accused petitioners and for that an agreement was also executed between the parties and it was agreed by the accused petitioners that possession and registry would be done at the proper time. However, the registry has not been done in his favour by the accused petitioners and thus, accused petitioners by deceitful means took away Rs. 7,25,000/-from the complainant and thus, cheated him.
On this report, police registered the case being FIR No. 372/2000 and started investigation.
3. Hence, the present petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners for quashing the said FIR contending inter alia :-
1. That the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and no case of criminal liability arises from the facts of the present case.
2. That neither there is criminal breach of trust nor case of cheating is made out against the accused petitioners as the possession of the disputed land is already with the complainant.
3. It is, therefore, prayed that FIR in question be quashed.
4. On the other hand, this petition has been opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant stating inter alia that the question of possession is also in dispute and prima facie a case of criminal breach of trust and cheating is made out against the accused petitioners and thus, this petition be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary.
6. The legal position on the subject is very much clear from the various authorities of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad AH Khan reported in (1988) 4 SCC 655: (1989 Cri LJ 1005). it has been held that jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. It has been held that at an initial stage a Court should not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not. Again in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 : (1992 Cri LJ 527), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power of quashing criminal proceedings must be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. It has been held that the Court would not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR Of the complainant. It has been held that the extra-ordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in latest decision in Mahavir Prasad Gupta (Shri) v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2000 Cri LR (SC) 765 : (2000 Cri LJ 4665), has further held that undoubtedly there could be interference in rarest of rare cases.
8.1 have perused the case diary produced by the learned Public Prosecutor and in the case diary, there are statements of witnesses recorded by the police under section 161 Cr. P.C. and there is statement of complainant where he has clearly stated that the accused petitioners have neither delivered the possession of the disputed land to him nor have they completed the process of the registry. There are similar other statements to that effect.
9. Thus, at this stage it can be easily said that allegations made in the FIR in question do clearly constitute cognizable offence justifying the registration of the case and investigation thereon. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is purely a civil dispute between the parties as the complainant has paid Rs. 7,25,000/- to the accused petitioners for purchase of land, but question of possession is in dispute and registry in pursuance of the agreement executed between the parties has not been made.
10. In these circumstances, it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise extraordinary or inherent power under section 482 Cr. P.C. to quash the FIR in question. The investigation is pending with the police and this Court should not interfere with the investigation of the case, as the power under section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised in rarest of rare cases and this is not one of them.
Hence, there is no merit in this criminal misc. petition under section 482 of Cr. P.C. and the same is hereby dismissed.