Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—The present Criminal Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the applicant-original accused, Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, UCO Bank Bhavan, Ahmedabad to quash and set aside Criminal Case No. 2928/2007, pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 22 at Ahmedabad and also the summons/process issued by the said Court against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts leading to the present application in a nutshell are as under;— 2.1. The original complainant-Respondent No. 1 herein is the widow of one late Shri Popatlal Bhalaji Thakore, an ex-employee of UCO Bank. There was some dispute with respect to family pension, which was not received by her and, therefore, initially she approached the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and by communication dated 30/07/2001 she was informed to initiate appropriate proceedings by way of Special Civil Application. It appears that thereafter instead of filing Special Civil Application she has filed the impugned criminal complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad against the applicant and one another person for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code alleging interalia that more than eight years have passed since she became entitled for family pension and the same is not paid and, therefore, the same is not only illegal but it is inhuman also for the applicant-original accused to detain pension of an old widow and, therefore, it was alleged that the applicant and another accused have committed the offences under Section 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that initially the learned Magistrate passed an order for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed the Elizebridge Police Station to inquire into the same and submit the report. It appears that after the inquiry the investigating Officer of Elizebridge Police Station submitted the report dated 06/10/2005 submitting that no offence has been committed by the applicant and accused persons as alleged. It appears that after the inquiry the investigating Officer of Elizebridge Police Station submitted the report dated 06/10/2005 submitting that no offence has been committed by the applicant and accused persons as alleged. Thereafter, the said report came to be considered by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and the learned Magistrate by impugned order has not accepted the report submitted by the Investigating Officer and has passed an order to issue summons/process against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid, the applicant-original accused No. 2 has preferred the present Criminal Miscellaneous application. 3. Shri. Vakharia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-original accused No. 2 has vehemently submitted that as such the applicant has not committed any offence as alleged for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that as such the dispute with respect to family pension was purely civil dispute for which even advice by the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority was given and she was advised to file Special Civil Application but she has filed the impugned Complaint, which is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and law. It is submitted that as such Respondent No. 1-original complainant did not give the option before the relevant date and, therefore, she was not entitled to get the family pension. It is further submitted that as such there are no allegations and averments in the Complaint making out a case for the offences under Sections 427, 166, 120-B and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, it is requested to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to quash and set aside the impugned Complaint. 4. Respondent No. 1-original complainant was represented by one Shri. Dayesh Bhatt, learned advocate on her behalf. However as he was not remaining present, and, therefore, this Court directed to issue fresh notice upon Respondent No. 1 informing her about the next date of hearing so as to enable her to make alternative arrangement and the matter was adjourned to 20/09/2011. 5. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No1-original complainant and no alternative arrangement has been made. 5. Though served, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No1-original complainant and no alternative arrangement has been made. Under the circumstances, this Court has no other alternative but to proceed further with the hearing of the suit ex parte. 6. Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP has requested to pass an appropriate order considering the averments and allegations made in the Complaint as well as the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Heard Shri Vakharia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant and Shri L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and considered the impugned Complaint. Considering the averments and allegations made in the Complaint it appears that the dispute raised by respondent No1-original complainant is with respect to non payment of family pension. There are as such no averments and allegations made in the Complaint attracting the offence under Sections 427 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code. 7.1. Section 427 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under; 427. Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.—Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable-Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Compoundable by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused. 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person.—Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 7.2. On bare reading of the impugned Complainant/Criminal Case, there are no allegations in the Complaint that the accused persons, who intent to cause injury to any person, knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief. Similarly, there are no allegations in the impugned Complaint/Criminal Case attracting the offence under Section 160 of the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, the ingredients of the aforesaid offence under Sections 427 and 166 of the Indian Penal Code are not satisfied at all. Under the circumstances, the impugned Complaint is not an abuse of process of law and/or Court. 8. It is required to be noted at this stage that before filing the impugned Complaint/Criminal Case, Respondent No. 1-original complainant did approach the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority and she was advised to file/prefer Special Civil Application and instead of filing Special Civil Application she has filed the impugned Criminal Complaint. However, the civil dispute is tried to be converted into criminal dispute, which is nothing but an abuse of process of law and Court. Under the circumstances, the impugned Complaint and the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process against the applicant deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the present application succeeds. The impugned Criminal Complaint, being Criminal Case No. 2928/2007 as well as the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 15/11/2008 issuing summons/process against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 160, 120-B and 114 are hereby quashed and set aside so far as the applicant-original accused No. 2 is concerned. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P