JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—The petitioners have directed the present petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973t for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the Respondent No. 1 vide Criminal Case No. 25/1 of 1997 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 506(.ll) and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the present petition may be thus stated. The petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, hereinafter referred to as the accused, got an advertisement published in the daily newspaper "Punjab Kesari Ambala edition in its issue dated 25.7.1995 offering financial loans to the interested parties and inviting applications therefore. Respondent No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, who was in need of finance for the purpose of expansion of its plant, believing the advertisement applied to the accused for a loan of Rupees twenty five lacs. On the receipt of the application of the complainant, the four accused in connivance with each other, deputed accused Ravi Pandey to Nahan on 3.8.1995. He enticed the complainant that the loan applied for would be sanctioned as soon as formal application in that regard was received. The said accused procured a letter dated 3.8.1995 from the complainant and under allurement extorted a sum of Rs. 6,000/- allegedly as expenses for fulfilment of certain formalities. 3. The four accused in furtherance of a conspiracy and common intention to further cheat and defraud the complainant, telephonically invited the complainant to Bombay for execution of the loan documents. The complainant went to Bombay and visited the office of the accused. They assured the complainant that the loan applied for would be sanctioned. They asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 50v000A on execution of the documents. The complainant, having been taken in by the allurements extended by the accused, paid Rs. 50,000/- in denomination of Rs. 10,000/- each on 8.8.1995 to 12.8.1995. The accused in order to reassure the complainant, got a loan agreement for the amount of Rupees twenty five lacs executed from him. The amount of loan was never disbursed to the complainant inspite of his having approached the accused repeatedly at Delhi and Bombay. The accused went on avoiding the disbursement of the loan amount on one pretext or the other by raising objection after objection. The amount of loan was never disbursed to the complainant inspite of his having approached the accused repeatedly at Delhi and Bombay. The accused went on avoiding the disbursement of the loan amount on one pretext or the other by raising objection after objection. They ultimately on 20.3.1996 refused to advance the loan. All the accused are further alleged to have surrounded the complainant on 20.3.1996 in their office at Bombay when threats were extended to him and his signatures were obtained on certain documents, the contents of which were neither read over and explained to him nor he was allowed to read the same. The complainant was thereafter kicked out of their office by the accused under threat to his life. 4. The complainant on 20.2.1997 presented a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, under Section 200, Code of Criminal Procedure, for proceeding against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the accused had cheated the complainant of Rs. 56,000/-. The learned Magistrate after holding the preliminary inquiry as envisaged under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, came to the conclusion that there exist reasonable grounds to proceed against the accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 506(ll) and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. He accordingly, directed the issuance of process against the accused under Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure, for their presence on 4.7.1997. 5. On having been served with the process issued against them by the learned Magistrate, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition seeking the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the complainant. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 6. At the very outset it may be stated that the proceedings pending against the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, are liable to be quashed for the reasons hereinafter following. 7. A bare reading of the complaint, Annexure P-1, shows that the same pertains to different incidents which had occurred at different times and at two different places, that is, Nahan and Bombay. 7. A bare reading of the complaint, Annexure P-1, shows that the same pertains to different incidents which had occurred at different times and at two different places, that is, Nahan and Bombay. These different incidents having taken place at different times and at different places, under the law, could not have been clubbed together for being made the basis of one complaint. Due to clubbing of different incidents which took place at different times, there has not only been misjoinder of persons but has also resulted in misjoinder of offences. Besides, the Court at Nahan would not be competent to try the offence which was allegedly committed at Bombay. The defect is patent on the face of the complaint and the same cannot be held to be a valid complaint. On this point I am supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in A. Varghese and another v. Chellappan, 1998 Cr.LJ. 1328. % The averments made in the complaint along with the material placed on the record show that the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature with regard to a financial transaction. Annexure P-16 attached to the petition is the receipt dated 213.1996 alleged to have been executed by the complainant in favour of the accused in respect of the receipt of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- against the cancellation of the agreement dated 9.8.1995. The complainant has denied the receipt of the amount. His case is that his signatures were forcibly and under threat obtained on some blank papers at Bombay. The question whether Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the complainant or not is purely a dispute of civil nature and the same does not in any way disclose any criminal offence. 8. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the accused vide Cr. Case. No. 25/1 of 1997 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, are quashed. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan, for information. Petition allowed. -