By this petition under section 482 CrPC, the petitioners pray for quashing the Complaint Case No.l556c/95 as vexatious litigation filed with a view, and intention to harass the petitioner. It is out and out a civil dispute and invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal Court is an abuse of the process of the Court. 2. It is a settled principles of law that is such cases the plausible and probable defence of an accused is not required to be taken into account. The allegations as made in complaint are to be taken on their face value as correct. Approaching the complaint as filed as Annexure C to the petition from this angle, it is significant to note that the complainant as a company, M/s. Narendra Impex Ltd, has been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The opening paragraph of the complaint reads as follows : "That, the complainant is a company incorporated as per Companies Act, 1956 and is dealing in the business of Motor Financiers & Commission Agents on hire purchase basis." 3. It is an admitted position that the complainant is dealing in finance on hire purchase. Paragraph 2 of the complaint sets out the details of transaction between the parties. 4. According to the complainant the accused have committed offences punishable under section 406/420/422/506 read with section 34 IPC. According to the complainant there was an outstanding due of Rs.59,540/- which also includes Rs.8,000/- as capital amount plus overdue interests and other charges as per agreement amounting to Rs.51,540/- as calculated upto 31st July, 1995 which the accused-petitioners have failed to pay despite repeated request and reminders, instead have threatened the complainant with dire consequences when approached for payment on 22.7.95, when he was not even allowed to inspect the vehicle and the relevant documents. On these allegations the complaint has been registered and congnizance taken and process issued. The Supreme Court in Trilok Singh vs. Satyadeo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 dealing with the similar case has held as follows : "On the face of the complaint petition itself the highly exaggerated version given by the respondent that the appellants went to his house with a mob armed with deadly weapons and committed the offence of dacoity in taking away the truck was so very unnatural and untrustworthy that it could not take the matter out of the realm of civil dispute. Nobody on the side of the respondent was hurt. Even a scratch was not given to anybody." 5. The test to be applied in such cases, where the dispute involved is of a civil nature, has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709 thus : "When a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the Court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and whether in the opinion of the Court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage. Though a case of breach of trust may be both a civil wrong and a criminal offence but there would be certain situation where it would predominantly be a civil wrong and may or may not amount to a criminal offence." 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, placing reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court as reported in (1994) 1 SCC 463 , Chetan Anand vs. State of Punjab submitted that a case of misappropriation is amply made out. It was a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 16th August. 1979 as passed by the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482 read with section 397 CrPC praying for quashing the First Information Report and proceedings before the trial Court. That apart, the facts are quite distinguishable. It was a Special Leave Petition against the order dated 16th August. 1979 as passed by the High Court dismissing the petition under section 482 read with section 397 CrPC praying for quashing the First Information Report and proceedings before the trial Court. That apart, the facts are quite distinguishable. An amount of Rs.10 lakhs was advanced by the Central Bank of India to the accused on the basis of a guarantee furnished by the Director of Information and Publicity, Punjab for production of his film 'Heer Ranjha' and as per agreement executed by the accused appellant in that case it was stipulated that the entire amount of income from the said film, received or realised by him (the accused) or his agent, shall be deposited in joint account to be opened in the joint names of the appellant and the Punjab Govt. as a trust for repayment of the above loan. The accused has further undertaken that the amount shall be utilised in the repayment of the amount of instalment of the loan to the Bank and the accused shall not be entitled to withdraw the same. In contravention of the above stipulation the accused after production of the film and its screening through Sant Theatre, Jullundur for eight weeks in the year 1970, the proceeds realised were never deposited in the joint account as stipulated, nor the same were utilised towards repayment of loan raised from the Central Bank. The complainant's case was that it was a trust in the hands of the appellant for repayment of loan to the Central Bank of India. Now the above facts clearly distinguish the case at hand. There is no such allegation of a trust having been created. On the other hand, an apparent contradiction is projected by alleging offences under section 406 as well as 420 IPC. 7. Applying and following the principles as laid down by the Supreme Court in Trilok Singh and Madhav Rao Scindia's cases (supra), the dispute raised before the criminal Court is out and out a civil dispute. The proceedings as prayed for are liable to be quashed, they are accordingly quashed. The petition is allowed.