JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Jain, J.—Heard Sri Ram Mohan, learned Counsel for the applicants and Sri Vivek Kumar Birla, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. 2. Since the identical controversy is involved in these two applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C. these were heard together and are being decided by common judgment and order. 3. These two applications have been filed to quash the proceedings of criminal case No. 475/9/2006 Lieutenant Colonel Mukul Dev v. Kapil Kumar and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC relating to case crime No. 70 of 2005 of Police Station Delhi Gate pending in the Court of J.M./A.C.J. (Jr. Div.) Court No. 2, Meerut. 4. The First Information Report was lodged at the instance of opposite party No. 2 as case crime No. 70 of 2005 on 8-7-2005 under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420, IPC at Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut. As per this report, lodged by opposite party No. 2, the house of Late Surendra Dayal, father of opposite party No. 2, having old number 142 and new number 184 is situate in Mohalla Jantibada, Meerut City. After the death of his father, Kapil Kumar Agarwal, Smt. Payal Agarwal, Dhanesh Garg and Arun Kumar Jain, in collusion with the employees of Nagar Nigam after forging his signature and fabricating the documents, got the aforesaid house mutated in the records in the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi. The copies of letters received from Nagar Nigam are annexed with the application. 5. The investigating officer, during investigation, after recording the statements of the witnesses, submitted the final report in the matter on 8-7-2005. Opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition No. 400/11 of 2005 on 29-11-2005 before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, after considering the protest petition, treated the same as complaint and fixed 16-5-2006 for statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. This order was passed on 21-4-2006 by the learned Magistrate. Opposite party No. 2, being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21-4-2006, preferred a criminal revision No. 222 of 2006, Lt. Col. The learned Magistrate, after considering the protest petition, treated the same as complaint and fixed 16-5-2006 for statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. This order was passed on 21-4-2006 by the learned Magistrate. Opposite party No. 2, being dissatisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate dated 21-4-2006, preferred a criminal revision No. 222 of 2006, Lt. Col. Mukul Dev v. State of U.P. The revisional Court vide its judgment and order dated 4-10-2006 remanded the matter with the direction to the learned Magistrate that the case may be treated as State case and the learned Magistrate may reconsider the matter in the light of observations made by the revisional Court in the body of its judgment. The learned Magistrate, after receiving the copy of the judgment of the revisional Court, passed the order dated 23-11-2006 and summoned the accused persons, who are applicants in this case. 6. The applicants have challenged the proceedings on the ground that the mutation in the name of widow of Sri Surendra Dayal namely Smt. Deveshwari Devi has been made by the Nagar Nigam after completing all the formalities on 14-2-2003; that Smt. Deveshwari Devi is mother of applicants Kapil Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Payal Agarwal and of opposite party No. 2 Lt. Col. Mukul Dev; that during the mutation proceedings on 25-9-2002 a notice under Section 213 Nagar Nigam Act was served by the process server at the address of applicants Kapil Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Payal Agarwal after the death of their father Sri Surendra Dayal for mutation of the house in the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi. On the back of notice under Section 213 Nagar Nigam Act applicants Kapil Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Payal Agarwal, who are son and daughter of the deceased Surendra Dayal, made signatures of receipt of notice and regarding opposite party No. 2, who is also son of the deceased Surendra Dayal and applicant Smt. Deveshwari Devi, they informed the process server that opposite party No. 2 is living at another address i.e. C/o 99 A.P.O. Process server made this endorsement on the process and affixed the notice in front of the house No. 184 in presence of the witnesses applicants Dhanesh Garg and Arun Kumar Jain. A true copy of the notice under Section 213 Nagar Nigam Act has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the application. A true copy of the notice under Section 213 Nagar Nigam Act has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the application. The mutation in the name of widow of the deceased Surendra Dayal was made on 14-2-2003, the copy of mutation order has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the application. It has further been stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that a registered notice was also sent by Nagar Nigam at the address of opposite party No. 2 regarding the mutation proceedings; that opposite party No. 2 had made inspection application after two years on 8-7-2005; that opposite party No. 2, aggrieved by the mutation order made in favour of his mother Smt. Deveshwari Devi, has preferred tax appeal No. 59 of 2003 before the Judge Small Cause Court (JSCC) Major Mukul Dev v. Nagar Nigam and others, under Section 472 Nagar Nigam Act against the mutation order dated 14-2-2003 made in favour of applicant Smt. Deveshwari Devi; that applicants Arun Kumar Jain and Dhanesh Garg are the witnesses of service of notice. 7. The aforesaid First Information Report made by opposite party No. 2, on the basis of which the criminal proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate, which are sought to be quashed, is a clear abuse of the process of the Court and have been initiated by mala fide for wreaking vengeance and harm to the applicants with absurd allegations. The dispute is purely of civil law and opposite party has already filed appeal and no criminal offence has been committed by the applicants. 8. In criminal misc. application No. 1688 of 2007 in support of the above contentions applicant Dhanesh Garg has filed his affidavit and in criminal misc. application No. 409 of 2007 applicant Arun Kumar Jain has filed his affidavit. Opposite party No. 2 has filed the counter-affidavit. 8. In criminal misc. application No. 1688 of 2007 in support of the above contentions applicant Dhanesh Garg has filed his affidavit and in criminal misc. application No. 409 of 2007 applicant Arun Kumar Jain has filed his affidavit. Opposite party No. 2 has filed the counter-affidavit. The case of the opposite party No. 2 is that at the insistence of all the applicants process server of Nagar Nigam served the notice under Section 213 Nagar Nigam Act in the absence of opposite party No. 2; that the applicants Smt. Deveshwari Devi, Smt. Payal Agarwal and Kapil Kumar Agarwal with mala fide intention hatched the conspiracy to get the house mutated in the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi after the death of his father Sri Surendra Dayal; that applicant Kapil Kumar Agarwal, who is the elder son of the deceased Surendra Dayal, made signatures of the deponent to mislead and to get the name of his mother mutated in the revenue records which was done in the presence of applicant Smt. Payal Agarwal; that applicant Kapil Kumar Agarwal made signatures of opposite party No. 2 on the back of notice, which fact has been admitted by him in his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and the applicants also furnished a false address of the opposite party No. 2 and applicant No. 1 Smt. Deveshwari Devi again given false address of opposite party No. 2. In a petition subsequently filed by her in Meerut Court she has given the address of opposite party No. 2, which is the address of her in-laws. Mutation was obtained by fraud. No registered notice was ever sent to the opposite party No. 2. The investigation was not conducted properly. 9. Learned Counsel for the applicants, in view of the above facts, has vehemently argued that opposite party No. 2 is the real son of applicant No. 1 Smt. Deveshwari Devi in criminal misc. application No. 1688 of 2007 and real brother of applicants No. 2 and 3 namely Smt. Payal Agarwal and Kapil Kumar Agarwal. Applicants Arun Kumar Jain and Dhanesh Garg are the witnesses of the process served upon the other applicants during mutation proceedings. It has further been argued that the alleged dispute, if at all, is essentially of a civil nature and the opposite party No. 2 has given it a cloak of criminal offence. Applicants Arun Kumar Jain and Dhanesh Garg are the witnesses of the process served upon the other applicants during mutation proceedings. It has further been argued that the alleged dispute, if at all, is essentially of a civil nature and the opposite party No. 2 has given it a cloak of criminal offence. The investigating officer, after investigation, had submitted the final report and the learned Magistrate was not justified in summoning the applicants. Applicants Dhanesh Garg and Arun Kumar Jain were only the witnesses of the process. A perusal of the process issued during the mutation proceedings, a photocopy of which has been filed alongwith the affidavit of the applicant, goes to show that applicants Smt. Payal Agarwal and Kapil Kumar Agarwal had received the notice and process server had endorsed on the process that opposite party No. 2 Mukul Dev’s address as given is 76 Regiment, C/o 99 A.P.O. This process was witnessed by applicants Dhanesh Garg and Arun Kumar Jain and this notice was also affixed on the house. This process was served on 20-9-2002 while FIR has been made after three years on 8-7-2005 with wild allegations that the applicants in collusion with the employees of Nagar Nigam forged the signatures of the opposite party No. 2 and fabricated the documents to get the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi, mother of opposite party No. 2, mutated over the house No. 142, new number 184 situate at Mohalla Jantibada, Meerut City after the death of the father of opposite party No. 2. 10. Per contra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 Sri Birla has vehemently contended that it was the conspiracy hatched by the applicants that the house was mutated in the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi. They tampered the process. Applicant Kapil Kumar Agarwal had initially made signatures of the opposite party No. 2 Mukul Dev on the process and then had cut it and the report of the process server on the process was subsequently scribed. Thus it is a clear cut case of forging the signatures of opposite party No. 2 and fabricating the documents for the purpose of mutation in the records of Nagar Nigam. 11. Thus it is a clear cut case of forging the signatures of opposite party No. 2 and fabricating the documents for the purpose of mutation in the records of Nagar Nigam. 11. Learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has also relied upon the case of Minu Kumari and another v. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 4 SCC 359 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the inherent power of the High Court should be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and can be exercised only to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and it should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision where entire facts are complete and hazy. 12. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and others, (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188 in para 12 has stated that the principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions : The principles, as given in para 12, are as follows : (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil law; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil law as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 13. Coming to the facts of this case it appears that after the death of father of opposite party No. 2 Surendra Dayal, the house owned by Surendra Dayal was mutated in the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi, wife of Surendra Dayal. Opposite Party No. 2 Lt. Col. Mukul Dev is the son of Surendra Dayal and Smt. Deveshwari Devi. During the mutation proceedings a notice on 25-9-2002 under Section 213 Nagar Nigam Act was served by the process server at the address of applicants Kapil Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Payal Agarwal for mutation of house in the name of Smt. Deveshwari Devi. Applicants Kapil Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Payal Agarwal, who are son and daughter of deceased Surendra Dayal, made signatures of receipt of notice, which was witnessed by the applicants Arun Kumar Jain and Dhanesh Garg. A true copy of notice has been annexed as Annexure 2 to this application. Applicants Kapil Kumar Agarwal and Smt. Payal Agarwal, who are son and daughter of deceased Surendra Dayal, made signatures of receipt of notice, which was witnessed by the applicants Arun Kumar Jain and Dhanesh Garg. A true copy of notice has been annexed as Annexure 2 to this application. There is an endorsement of the process server that the address of opposite party No. 2 is 76 Regiment, C/o 99 A.P.O. After service of this notice, the mutation in the name of widow of deceased Surendra Dayal was made on 14-2-2003. Aggrieved by the mutation order, opposite party No. 2, in the year 2003 only, has preferred tax appeal No. 59 of 2003 before the Judge Small Cause Court (JSCC) Major Mukul Dev v. Nagar Nigam and others, under Section 472 Nagar Nigam Act, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the application. Thereafter, after the lapse of two years on 8-7-2005, the FIR was lodged by opposite party No. 2 against the applicants relating to the same dispute. 14. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that it is a clear cut case of abuse of the process of the Court and the criminal proceedings, initiated on the basis of the FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2, have been initiated with mala fides for wreaking vengeance and to cause harm to the reputation of his own brother, sister and mother. It is pertinent to note here that after investigation the investigating officer had submitted a final report. The learned Magistrate did not disclose the evidence collected during investigation on the basis of which he summoned the applicants. 15. In the result, both the Applications are allowed. The proceedings of criminal case No. 475/9/2006, Lieutenant Colonel Mukul Dev v. Kapil Kumar and others, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC relating to case crime No. 70 of 2005 of Police Station Delhi Gate, District Meerut pending in the Court of J.M./A.C.J. (Jr. Div.) Court No. 2, Meerut are quashed. Certified copy of this judgment be sent to the lower Court concerned. ————