JUDGMENT : S.D. Pandit, J. Rule. Heard Mr. N.M.Kapadia for the petitioner, Mr. Y.F.Mehta L.A.P.P. for respondent no.1 and Mr. J.V.Mehta on behalf of respondent no.2, at length on merits of the matter. I therefore, proceed to dispose of the petition finally at the stage of admission. 2. The original accused in Cri. Case No. 80/96 on the file of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court no. 15, Ahmedabad have preferred this application to stay the prosecution which has been initiated by the respondent no.2 Rajeshbhai Atmaram Jesalpura by lodging his private complaint in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 17.4.96. 3. Respondent no.2 is the manager of Ram Gujarat Communication Services Ltd. Said firm Ram Gujarat Communication Services Ltd. is a dealer in electronic goods and they are also selling pagers. Petitioner No.1 Kaunteye G. Nimaksari is the son of the petitioner no.2 Gaurang J. Nimaksari. The petitioner no.2 who is arrayed as accused no.2 in the said Criminal Case No. 80 is doing business in the name of Nikkom Electronics. 4. It is the case of the respondent no.2 that in the month of July 1995, the accused had taken 5 pagers costing Rs. 10,289.00 per piece and 36 pagers costing 13,465/- each. Said 36 pagers were delivered to the accused no.1 for sale. The complainant alleged in this complaint that both accused nos. 1 and 2 had a pre plan of cheating the complainant-respondent no.2 for the price of the said pagers of Rs. 4,68,860/-. Therefore, though they took delivery of the said 36 pagers, they did not pay anything to the complainant. Though the original complainant tried to contact the accused, they were moving from place to place. When the complainant contacted the accused, they stated that they had no intention to serve the complainant-company and they have no goods and they are not going to make payment of any amount and they had also threatened to kill. It is further alleged that though the accused have sold the said pagers to various customers and have recovered the amount from the customers, they have not credited any amount with the complainant-firm and thus the accused have cheated the complainant-firm and misappropriated the amount of Rs. 4,68,860/-. Therefore, both the accused have committed offence u/s 406,408, 420, 506(2) and 114 IPC. 5. 4,68,860/-. Therefore, both the accused have committed offence u/s 406,408, 420, 506(2) and 114 IPC. 5. After the registration of the said complaint, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct the police to hold an inquiry under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioners have come before this court against the said order. It is their claim that the complaint lodged against them is false and vexatious. According to them as a matter of fact they have paid the price of the pagers as per the agreement between the parties and they were to get Rs. 48,000/- by way of commission for selling those 36 pagers and they had made a demand to get the said commission. But instead of paying the said amount to them, a false case is lodged against them in order to pressurise them to withdraw their claim for the said amount of Rs. 48,000/-. They have produced various documents to show that in fact they have tendered the accounts for those 36 pagers to the station incharge of the branch office of the complainant-firm at Surat. The petitioners have stated that as a matter of fact they had taken delivery of those 36 pagers at Surat from the station incharge of the branch office of the complainant-firm at Surat and they have also made payment by issuing various cheques which were encashed by the complainant firm. But all these facts were purposefully concealed by the petitioner in order to pressurise the petitioners and to harass them so as to give up their claim for Rs. 48,000/- to which they are entitled to by way of commission. 7. The proceedings in question is at the stage of issuing process. At the stage of issuing process it is not the duty of the court to find out as to whether the accused will be ultimately convicted or acquitted. At this stage, this court has to consider whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed with the case or not. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supple.(1) SCC 335 the Apex Court has considered exercising of extra ordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India or u/s 488 Cr.P.C. by the High Court and has laid down the following principles. In the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal reported in 1992 Supple.(1) SCC 335 the Apex Court has considered exercising of extra ordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India or u/s 488 Cr.P.C. by the High Court and has laid down the following principles. "The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2)Where the allegation in first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognisable offence justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and made out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognisable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 152(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievances of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievances of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." In the case of Punjab National Bank & ors v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, AIR 1992 (SC) 1815 it has been observed as under: "Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. The Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as vendetta to harass the persons needlessly...." Bearing in mind the above principles, I proceed to consider the facts of the case before me. The petitioner has produced along with the petition Annexure.B which is the statement of the pagers sold by the petitioners and the payment made by them to the complainant-respondent no.2 herein through station incharge of Surat Branch. Annexure.C consists of various memos given by the petitioner to the station incharge of the branch office of the complainant-firm at Surat. Said memos mention the details regarding sales of various pagers, amounts received by the petitioners and the payment of the said amount to the station incharge of the complainant-firm etc. There is no dispute of the genuineness of these memos which are produced at Annexure C. Annexure.D is also a statement regarding the disputes as regards certain pagers which are though sold by the petitioners, the price of the same has been recovered by the petitioner firm and some disputes are also raised by the customers. In the said Annexure.D present petitioners have also mentioned their claim for the commission of Rs. 48,000/-. Annexure-F is the memo dated 29.9.95 sent by the petitioners to the station incharge of the original complainant. In the said Annexure.D present petitioners have also mentioned their claim for the commission of Rs. 48,000/-. Annexure-F is the memo dated 29.9.95 sent by the petitioners to the station incharge of the original complainant. After this memo was submitted, the petitioners have given two cheques of the same date of 29.9.95 as per Annexure.F. Annexure.G shows that the station incharge of the original-complainant have not received the pager no. 290442 and payment as regards pager no.280283. By the letter dated 23.11.95 present petitioners had raised various disputes and had contended that the claim of the original complainant that the cheque issued by the petitioners for Rs. 86,628/- had bounced was false one. Annexures H to J clearly show that there are disputes between the parties over the accounts of 36 pagers and the petitioners claim to get their commission. It is very pertinent to note that the original complainant has not at all referred to these Annexures H to J which are by way of issuing notices and replies through their respective advocate. The complainant has also not referred in his complaint payment of certain amount of various cheques by the petitioner. On the contrary he has made out a case that he has not received a farthing towards the sale of 36 pagers by the petitioners. Therefore, it is obvious that the complainant has not come with clean hands before this court. In view of the exchange of notice through advocate by the parties it is obvious that the real dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and the original complainant has tried to make abuse of process of law by lodging this criminal prosecution against the petitioners. In the case of Trilok Singh & ors v. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850 the Apex court has considered the question launching of prosecution as regards the disputes which is of civil nature and has held that the criminal proceedings initiated as regards the dispute which was purely of civil nature was an abuse of process of court and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by the High Court by exercising of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it would be quite clear that the prosecution initiated by respondent no.2 is a clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it would be quite clear that the prosecution initiated by respondent no.2 is a clear abuse of process of law. The criminal proceedings pending by way of criminal case no. 80/96 in the court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court no.15, Ahmedabad deserves to be quashed by exercising the inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.c. In the circumstances, the criminal case no. 80/96 pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court no.15, Ahmedabad is hereby quashed. Rule made absolute.