Prafulla C. Pant, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 3.1.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby said Court has dismissed Criminal Misc. Case No. 3977 of 2012, challenging the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1807 of 2012 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, relating to Crime No. 344 of 2011 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 Arun Dwivedi lodged First Information Report at Police Station Thakurganj, Lucknow, against appellant Kamlesh Kumari, her daughter Jyoti Singh and son Sunny Singh, stating that they agreed to sell 1.746 hectare of land of Khasra No. 63 situated in Badhamau in the year 2006, for a consideration of Rs. 51,75,000/-, but, even after accepting a total sum of Rs. 42,00,000/- (in several instalments) they did not execute the sale deed. It is alleged by the complainant that the accused (appellants) have cheated him. It is further alleged by the complainant that he requested several times the appellants to execute the sale deed, but they avoided the same under one pretext or another, and finally on 12.7.2011 they not only declined to execute the sale deed, but hurled filthy abuses at the complainant, and gave threat to- kill him.

5. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Officer against the appellants before the Magistrate for their trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506, IPC, and the same was registered by the Magistrate on 6.8.2012, and summons were issued against the accused. It appears that accused have already been granted bail.

6. The appellants moved a petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court challenging the criminal proceedings initiated against them pleading that they are innocent and falsely implicated in the case. However, they admitted that they did had a talk regarding sale of their land through a broker Tara Chand and they received amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance money. It is alleged by the appellants that in their petition before the High Court that though as per agreement within one month remaining sale consideration was to be paid to them, but for two years they kept on waiting for the full payment. They also disclosed that in the year 2009, they have already sold the property to third party, and that is why as a counter-blast the First Information Report was got lodged by respondent No. 2 in 2011, i.e., five years after the talks were held in 2006. Further stating that the criminal proceedings are based on malice, the appellants sought quashing of the proceedings of Criminal case. However, the High Court, after hearing the parties and perusal of the papers on record, declined to interfere with the trial of the case. Hence this appeal through special leave.

7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 (State of Uttar Pradesh) it is stated that the appellants were required to obtain permission for execution of sale deed, from the District Magistrate, in favour of respondent No. 2, by 4.6.2006. However, they failed to seek the necessary permission. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that during investigation, it was found that admittedly the appellants have received Rs. 9,00,000/- on 11.10.2006 before the witnesses, apart from Rs. 5,00,000/- earlier paid to them. In paragraph 6, it is further stated that the appellants received further sum of Rs. 14,00,000/- on 30.9.2008 from the complainant and the appellants again promised him that they would be obtaining permission within two months thereafter. The Investigating Officer has further stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State that there was ample evidence on record relating to payment of Rs. 42,00,000/- by the complainant to the appellants and, as such, cheating was committed by them by not only denying to execute the sale deed but hurling abuses at him and threatening him of dire consequences.

8. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants on 10.4.2015 in which it is pleaded that the appellants have returned a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2, vide two bank drafts No. 379558 dated 6.2.2014 for Rs. 50,000/- and No. 135902 dated 5.3.2014 for Rs. 4,50,000/- both drawn on Canara Bank. It is further stated in the rejoinder affidavit that the appellants have committed no cheating against respondent No. 2.

9. On behalf of the appellants, our attention is drawn to the case of Ram Biraji Devi and another v. Umesh Kumar Singh and another, (2006) 6 SCC 669 , [LQ/SC/2006/465] and it is contended that the High Court should have quashed the proceedings as the dispute between the parties is, in substance, of property dispute. We have carefully gone through said case law and we find that the facts of said case cannot be said to be similar to the present one. In the present case, after investigation, charge- sheet has been filed, and Investigating Officer has stated that an amount of Rs. 42,00,000/- in several instalments was paid by respondent No. 2 to the appellants, which the appellants appeared to have dishonestly retained with them. From the rejoinder affidavit, it appears that the appellants have repaid only Rs. 5,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 through two bank drafts mentioned above that too after charge-sheet is filed In such a situation, we cannot apply the law laid down in Ram Biraji Devi (supra) to the case at hand.

10. In R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta and others, (2009) 1 SCC 516 [LQ/SC/2008/2184] in paragraph 15 , his Court, interpreting the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C, has laid down the law as under: -

“15. Propositions of law which emerge from the said decisions are:

(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a first information report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence.

(2) For the said purpose the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.

(3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.

(4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.

16. It is furthermore well known that no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down. Each case has to be considered on its own merits. The Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, although would not interfere with a genuine complaint keeping in view the purport and object for which the provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been introduced by Parliament but would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate cases. One of the paramount duties of the superior Courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to persecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.”

11. In view of the principle of law laid down by this Court, as above, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality with the impugned order passed by the High Court to quash le criminal proceedings against the appellants in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr.P.C

12. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. However, we clarify that we have not given any opinion as to the merits of the case pending before the trial Court, and the appellants are at liberty to take their pleas of defence, during the trial.