1. Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing three petitions titled above under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings drawn by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub Judge) Samba. It appears that three complaints came to be filed by respondents against the petitioner-alleged accused for the commission of offences punishable under section 420, 427, 341, 323, 506 and 504 of Ranbir Penal Code on the grounds which can be aptly and precisely enumerated as under:- 2. It is stated in the complaints that Manga Ram-petitioner- alleged accused had to construct double railway track from Devik Bridge to Railway Gate Bara as a contractor. In order to carry out the said work he was in need of earth-clay-soil for filling the track. He approached the complainants-respondents for digging land and for lifting the clay-earth-soil in order to fill up the railway track. It is also alleged that the petitioner-alleged accused made a promise to the complainants-respondents that after digging and lifting the earth-soil-clay he will make the leveling of the land of the respondents-complainants and construct a pacca road from link road Bara to village Chak Medu Basotra. Accordingly, the petitioner-alleged accused removed-extracted soil-clay-earth from the land of the respondents-complainants but failed to fulfill the promise. 3. It is also alleged that complainants-respondents along with some other inhabitants of the village approached the petitioner-alleged accused and requested him to fulfill the promise by leveling the land of the complainants-respondents and to construct a pacca road. But he avoided and did not fulfill the promise. Instead of fulfilling the promise, he abused the complainants-respondents. In support of the complaints, preliminary statements of complainants-respondents and of one witness in each complaint came to be recorded. One of the complainant-respondent namely Mansa Ram has stated that they had approached the concerned police for registering the case but they refused to do so and asked them to file appropriate case. 4. While going through the allegations contained in the complaints, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the grievance of the complainants-respondents is that the petitioner-alleged accused has failed to fulfill the promise and thereby has committed breach of agreement. 4. While going through the allegations contained in the complaints, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the grievance of the complainants-respondents is that the petitioner-alleged accused has failed to fulfill the promise and thereby has committed breach of agreement. There is nothing on the file suggesting the fact that petitioner-alleged accused has deceived the complainants-respondents by any deceitful means or has dishonestly deceived them and there is also nothing on the file that any such act was ever conducted by the petitioner-alleged accused which falls within the detention of criminal intimidation as defined in Section 503 of RPC. As the best it can be prima-facie said that it is a case of breach of agreement/breach of promise. The criminal court(s) cannot he used for settling the civil disputes by short cuts and to avoid the payment of court fees. 5. In the given circumstances, I am of the considered view that filing of complaints, initiation of process is abuse of process of law. 6. Accordingly the petitions are allowed and the complaints as also the proceedings initiated there-under are quashed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of the respondents-complainants from seeking the appropriate remedy available under law.