1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 2948/2008 Mr. Natthu Chindhuji Thakre and another. vs. State of Maharashtra and another. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.Vyas, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. Sunil Manohar, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : R.C. Chavan, J DATE : 9.1.2009 Two applicants seek quashing of F.I. R. against them registered by Police Station, Hingna bearing Crime No. 41/2008 in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 427, 447, 507 and 294 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.P.P. for non-applicant no.1 and learned counsel for non-applicant no.2. The Non-applicant no.2 is the original complainant on whose report F.I.R. was registered. One accused named in the F.I.R. viz M/s M.K.House Real Estate by proprietor Mr. Manikrao Dayaramji Vaidhya had raised the same challenge by Criminal Application No. 2122/2008 which was allowed by this Court by Judgment Dated 2nd July, 2008 whereby the F.I.R. in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code was 2` quashed and set aside on the ground that the offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code could not have been made out as the incident took place in a private field and not at a public place. As far as the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it was quashed because the applicant therein was the purchaser of the property. The learned counsel for non-applicant no.2, however, could not show that the present applicants, who are the vendors of the property and who are alleged to have sold the property which do not belong to them, committed cheating qua non- applicant no.2. Therefore, the complaint of cheating at the instance of non-applicant no.2 would not lie against the present applicants. Hence, the F.I.R. insofar as it relates to the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 294 of read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, is quashed and set aside in respect of the two applicants. Both the learned counsel state that to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings this order may govern the other persons named in the F.I.R. as well as in so far as the offence under Sections 420 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned. JUDGE patle 3`