V. N. MEHROTRA, J. This petition has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer that the proceedings in Case No. 604 of 1988- State v. Harbansh Singh and others, Pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Bijnor and also the charge- sheet No. 168, dated 5-9-1988 submitted by the police in case Crime No. 58 of 1988 under Section 423,1. P. C. be quashed. 2. The affidavits have been exchanged between the parties in support, of their assertions. Counsel for the parties have been heard by me, 3. The facts of the case, as will appear from the affidavits and other material on records, are that the opposite party No. 2 Gurudeo Singh and the present applicants as well as one Nishan Singh entered into an agreement on 20-6-1986 in which the opposite party No. 2 agreed to sell his property detailed in the agreement in favour of the present applicants and Nishan Singh. It was mentioned that an amount of Rs. 1,70,624 was to be paid by the pur chasers to the seller. Out of that amount Rs. 50,000 were paid at the time of execution of the agreement while Rs. 93,882 were paid by the purchasers in the discharge of the loan taken by the seller and the balance amount of Rs. 13,196 was agreed to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. It was also mentioned that the sale-deed was to be executed by 19-17-1987. As the consolidation proceedings were pending, it was provided that the seller will obtain necessary permission for the transfer of the land.)t is asserted on behalf of the petitioner that when the opposite party No. 2 did not execute the sale-deed in their favour, they appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 19- 12-1987 to get their presence recorded and moved an application on that date mention ing that the seller had not obtained the necessary permission so far. 4. On behalf of the opposite party No. 2, however, it was contended that the applicants were to be blamed for not getting the sale-deed executed after praying the balance money. It was asserted by him that he appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 19-12-1987 and moved a application before him for recording his presence. It. 4. On behalf of the opposite party No. 2, however, it was contended that the applicants were to be blamed for not getting the sale-deed executed after praying the balance money. It was asserted by him that he appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 19-12-1987 and moved a application before him for recording his presence. It. is then asserted by the opposite party No. 2 that actually there was a panchayat in which it was agreed that the sale-deed was to be executed by 31-12-1987. However, the applicants did not get the sale-deed executed by that date also on which the opposite party No. 2 served a notice rescinding the contract. It is asserted that even after that, the appli cants, in collusion with Harbansh Singh, who is Mukhtare-am of opposite party No. 2 got the sale-deed executed by Harbansh Singh on 15-1-1988. The oppo site party No. 2 them on 18-2-1988. moved an application before the Superintendent of Police concerned alleging that an offence under Section 428, I. P. C. has been committed by the accused persons as they had colluded with Mukhtare-am Harbansh Singh and got the sale-deed executed on 15-1-1988, though the Mukhtare-am could not have executed the sale-deed after 19-12-1987 in view of the conditions of the Mukhtare-am. It appears that a case was registered and after investigation, police submitted charged-sheet for the offence under Section 423, l. P. C. against the accused persons. 5. The contention by the applicants in this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. is that as the dispute between the parties was purely of a civil nature. It is asserted that the case has been instituted by opposite party No. 2 with a mala fide intention so that he could grab the huge amount which had already been paid by the applicants. It is also contended that the sale-deed was rightly and bonafidely got executed by the applicants from the Mukhtare-am of opposite party No. 2 as they were informed that the opposite party No. 2 appointed him for the purposes of the execution of the sale-deed in accordance with the agreement to sell. 6. On behalf of the opposite party No. 2, it has, however, been contend ed that there was sufficient material to show that the applicants had committed the offence under Section 423,1. P. C. and there was no reason for quashing the proceedings. 7. 6. On behalf of the opposite party No. 2, it has, however, been contend ed that there was sufficient material to show that the applicants had committed the offence under Section 423,1. P. C. and there was no reason for quashing the proceedings. 7. I have considered the arguments and have also perused the affidavits as well other material on record. As mentioned earlier, that was admittedly an agreement between the parties to sell the property in dispute and execute the sale-deed. It is also admitted that a huge amount of Rs. 1,57,428 has been paid by the applicants and only Rs. 13,196 remained to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed. It is also not disputed that the opposite party No. 2 had appointed Harbansh Singh his Mukhtare-am with a right to execute the sale-deed on his behalf. The dispute actually is that according to the opposite party No. 2, the applicants had committed breach of the contract in not getting the sale- deed executed by 19-12-1997 or by the extended date i. e. 31-12-1987 and so the agreement was rescinded by him. It is also contend ed by him that the Mukhtare-am could have executed the sale-deed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 till 19-12-1987 only and not after that but the applicants got the sale-deed executed on 15-1-1988 i. e. 15 days after the extended date. On behalf of the applicants, however, it is asserted that the delay in executing the sale-deed was on the part of the opposite party No. 2 who wanted to appropriate the huge amount paid by them. It is asserted that the agreement was never rescinded and that the Mukhtara-am was validly appointed to execute the sale-deed in favour of the applicants. 8. The above arguments clearly show that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature. The question whether the sale deed was not executed by 19-12-1987 or 31-12-1987 due to the fault of the applicants or of the oppo site party No. 2, could be decided by a civil court in a proper proceeding. Similarly, the question as to whether the agreement had come to an end or whether the Mukhtara-am could or could not validly execute the sale-deed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 on |15-!-1988. Similarly, the question as to whether the agreement had come to an end or whether the Mukhtara-am could or could not validly execute the sale-deed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 on |15-!-1988. i. e. beyond the date mention ed in the agreement, is also a matter which can be decided by the civil court in proper proceedings on the basis of the evidence which could be produced before it. Thus, obviously the present dispute is entirely a dispute of civil nature between the parties. 9. The opposite party No. 2 has instead of the approaching the civil court, taken the recourse of criminal proceeding. In my view, it is a clear abuse of the process of court and the opposite party No. 2 should not be per mitted to convert civil proceedings into criminal proceedings. 10 In view of the above facts, the petition is allowed and the entire proceedings in case No. 604 of 1988, State v. Harbansh Singh and others, pending in the court of Munsif Magistrate, Bijnore and also the charge-sheet No. 168, dated 5-9-1988 submitted by the police in case Crime No. 58 of 1988 under Section 423, I. P C. are quashed. Application allowed. .