Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused-petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, under Sections 420/468/471/379/120B, IPC, filed by the complainant-respondent, Deep Kumar Gupta, against the accused-petitioners and their co-accused "Mr. Goel", Manager, Central Bank of India, Batala, and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the present petition under Section 482, CrPC, filed by the accused- petitioners, it was alleged that Rajesh Kumar, son of Kewal Kumar, petitioner, was married with Smt. Upma, daughter of Deep Kumar Gupta, respondent, in the year 1984. It was alleged that said Rajesh Kumar died on 24.2.1992, leaving a Will, resulting in property dispute between the family members regarding the succession to the properties of Rajesh Kumar, deceased. It was alleged that Smt. Upma wd/o Rajesh Kumar and daughter of Deep Kumar Gupta, filed a criminal complaint under Sections 320/406/379, IPC, on 5.6.1992, copy Annexure P2, against the present petitioners and their co-accused, Smt. Sunita, wife of petitioner No. 3, Ravinder Kumar, levelling allegations of cheating, mis- appropriation and theft, etc. It was alleged that subsequently, Smt Upma Gupta and petitioner No. 1, Kewal Kumar Gupta, entered into an agreement dated 22.6.1992, copy Annexure P3, which was signed not only by Smt. Upma Gupta and Kewal Kumar Gupta, but was also signed by Deep Kumar, father of Smt. Upma Gupta. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement, receipt dated 2.7.1992, copy Annexure P4, was executed by Smt. Upma Gupta, which was also signed by her father, Deep Kumar. It was alleged that as a result thereof, Smt. Upma Gupta did not pursue the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P2, which was filed by her against the petitioners and accordingly, on 6.9.1992, the said complaint was dismissed by the learned Magistrate for want of prosecution. It was alleged that subsequently, in respect of FDRs, etc., lying in the Bank, Smt. Upma Gupta, on 14.6.1993, filed a suit for mandatory injunction in the Civil Court at Batala, against the Central Bank of India. A copy of the plaint was attached as Annexure P5. It was alleged that in order to harass the petitioners, Deep Kumar Gupta, father of Smt. Upma Gupta, filed the present criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, on 10.6.1993 on the same facts. A copy of the plaint was attached as Annexure P5. It was alleged that in order to harass the petitioners, Deep Kumar Gupta, father of Smt. Upma Gupta, filed the present criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, on 10.6.1993 on the same facts. It was alleged that the learned Magistrate had summoned the petitioners as accused in the said complaint, after recording preliminary evidence. It was alleged that the complaint, copy Annexure P1, was based on facts exclusively concerning Upma and these facts formed the basis of the complaint, copy Annexure P2. It was alleged that Smt. Upma Gupta got the compliant dismissed, in view of the compromise and concealing this fact that her father, Deep Kumar, filed the present complaint, even though he himself was a party to the compromise, entered into by his daughter, Upma Gupta. It was alleged that this would amount to abuse of process of Court. 3. In the written reply dated 8.2.1994, filed by the complainant-respondent, Deep Kumar Gupta, it was denied that Rajesh Kumar had left any Will. It was alleged that accused-petitioners were out to grab the properties of Rajesh Kumar to the exclusion of Smt. Upma Gupta and her minor son and daughter, who were entitled to inherit the property. It was alleged that the earlier complaint, filed by Smt. Upma Gupta, was in respect of mis-appropriation of dowry articles as also acts of theft and cheating. It was alleged that the petitioners had returned the dowry articles to Smt. Upma Gupta, after the institution of criminal complaint and an agreement was arrived at and she withdrew the criminal complaint, filed by her regarding mis-appropriation of dowry articles. It was alleged that there was no agreement regarding the money due to her from the Firm of the petitioners, besides her claim to inherit the property of her husband and the theft of valuable documents. It was admitted that the earlier complaint was dismissed on 6.7.1992, as no one had appeared in that case on the said date. It was alleged that as per the legal advice that since the complaint was at the initial stage and the accused had not been served/appeared, fresh complaint with regard to theft and cheating could be filed, regarding which, there was no compromise, Smt. Upma Gupta did not appear in Court on 6.7.1992. It was alleged that as per the legal advice that since the complaint was at the initial stage and the accused had not been served/appeared, fresh complaint with regard to theft and cheating could be filed, regarding which, there was no compromise, Smt. Upma Gupta did not appear in Court on 6.7.1992. It was alleged that the civil suit was filed on 14.6.1993, after the filing of the present criminal complaint. It was alleged that the earlier complaint was not with regard to the theft of FDRs and mis- appropriation thereof and the forgery of Will of the deceased husband of Smt. Upma Gupta, as these facts were not known at the time of Institution of the complaint by her. It was alleged that the learned Magistrate had ordered summoning of the petitioners as accused, on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and the preliminary evidence. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 5. It is not disputed before me that after Smt. Upma Gupta had filed the civil suit dated 14.6.1993, copy Annexure P5, against the Central Bank of India, seeking a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the Bank to release the payment of the FDRs, in question, the said Bank had filed an inter-pleader suit in the civil Court and that subsequent thereto, said Smt. Upma Gupta had withdrawn the suit for mandatory injunction, filed by her. 6. Annexure P2 is the first complaint, which was made by Smt. Upma Gupta against the present petitioners. In the said complaint, all the allegations had been levelled by her, as have been levelled by her father, Deep Kumar Gupta, in the present complaint, copy Annexure P1, except in respect of the theft of the two FDRs (with the Central Bank of India), which allegations are contained in para 6 of the present complaint, copy Annexure P1. As referred to above, Smt. Upma Gupta had got the earlier complaint dismissed for non- prosecution, after she had entered into a compromise with accused-petitioner, Kewal Kumar. A copy of the said agreement is Annexure P3 and a copy of the receipt is Annexure P4. In the agreement, copy Annexure P3, there is a reference about the criminal complaint, filed by Smt. Upma Gupta against the accused-petitioner, Kewal Kumar Gupta and others. A copy of the said agreement is Annexure P3 and a copy of the receipt is Annexure P4. In the agreement, copy Annexure P3, there is a reference about the criminal complaint, filed by Smt. Upma Gupta against the accused-petitioner, Kewal Kumar Gupta and others. There is also a reference in the said agreement that Smt. Upma Gupta shall withdraw the said complaint immediately on the re-opening of the Courts. It was in pursuance thereof that on 6.7.1992, Smt. Upma Gupta got the said complaint dismissed for non- prosecution. Since the earlier complaint was got dismissed for non-prosecution by Smt. Upma Gupta, in pursuance of the agreement, copy Annexure P3, in my opinion, her father, Deep Kumar Gupta, could not be allowed to file the present complaint with regard to the allegations, which were already there in the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P2, filed by Smt. Upma Gupta, and was got dismissed for non-prosecution. 7. Then we are left with the only allegation regarding the two FDRs with Central Bank of India, contained in para 6 of the complainant dated 10.6.1993, copy Annexure P1. In para 6 of the said criminal complaint, it was alleged by the complainant that there were two fixed deposits with Central Bank of India, Batala, and that after stealing the receipts of Smt. Upma Gupta, accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely Janak Rani and Kewal Kumar hatched a criminal conspiracy with the Manager (accused No. 4) to mis-appropriate the said deposits, which were in the name of her husband, Rajesh Kumar Gupta and herself, as "former or survivor". It was alleged that immediately after the death of her husband, Smt. Upma Gupta became the sole owner of those receipts (deposits). 8. As referred to above, these payments were made in para 6 of the complaint dated 10.6.1993, filed by Deep Kumar Gupta, against the accused-petitioners. However, when Smt. Upma Gupta (daughter of Deep Kumar Gupta) filed the suit for mandatory injunction dated 14.6.1993, copy Annexure P5 (four days after the filing of the criminal complaint by her father), it was alleged by Smt. Upma Gupta herself that after the death of her husband Rajesh Kumar, she was exclusively entitled for the release of the payments in respect of the FDRs in question, being the "survivor". It was a alleged that she intimated to the defendant (Central Bank of India) that the "original FDRs are not traceable" and the duplicate FDRs be issued to her and the payment be released, but the Manager of the Bank gave an evasive reply at the instance of Smt. Janak Rani and Kewal Kumar Gupta, who had absolutely no right, title or interest with the said FDRs. In the said plaint dated 14.6.1993, copy Annexure P5, filed by Smt. Upma Gupta herself, not a word was said that Kewal Kumar Gupta and his wife, Janak Rani (who are petitioner No. 1 and 2 in the present petition) had stolen those FDRs of Smt. Upma Gupta, as alleged by Deep Kumar Gupta, complainant, in para 6 of the complaint dated 10.6.1993, copy Annexure P1. If Smt. Upma Gupta herself is not alleging that the FDRs had been stolen by the accused petitioners Nos.1 and 2 namely Kewal Kumar and Smt Janak Rani and is only alleging that those FDRs were not traceable when she filed the suit on 14.6.1993, in my opinion, it would be an abuse of process of Court to place reliance on the allegations made by her father, Deep Kumar Gupta, when he alleged in para 6 of the complaint that those FDRs were stolen by accused- petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. It appears that the complainant has tried to convert the civil dispute between the parties into a criminal dispute by filing the present complaint and making allegations against the accused-petitioners, without any basis. In my opinion, the continuation of the proceedings, arising out of the said complaint, would be an abuse of process of Court. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, and all subsequent proceedings, taken thereon, including the summoning order against the petitioners, are hereby quashed, being abuse of process of Court.