JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. Present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C., was filed by the applicant for quashing the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 242 / 2003, pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, arising out of case crime no. 177 / 2012, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 I.P.C. It is also prayed that the cognizance order, as also the charge sheet submitted thereof be also quashed. Informant-respondent no. 3 filed an F.I.R. against the accused persons including the applicant on 7.10.2012 in P.S. Bahadrabad, Haridwar, which was registered as Case Crime No. 177/12, under Sections 420, and 506 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 468 IPC. Cognizance on the same was taken by learned Magistrate on 02.04.2013. Accused persons were summoned to face the trial. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was filed by the accused-applicant. 2. Taking recourse to Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C., respondent no. 3 lodged a complaint against the accused persons, including the applicant in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 I.P.C. It was said that the respondent no. 3 and the accused persons, including the applicant, entered into an agreement on 02.11.2004 in respect of a chunk of land, situated at Hari Parwat Merry Land, Haridwar. It was agreed on 02.11.2004 that the same will be got registered on 25.12.2004. Respondent no. 3 gave a payment of rupees 50,00,000/- to the accused persons at the time of agreement. A sum of rupees one crore twenty five lacs was also given by the respondent no. 3 to the accused persons through bank draft and cash on subsequent dates, before the date of registry. In all, a sum of rupees one crore seventy five lacs was given by the respondent no. 3 to the accused persons. Respondent no. 3, thereafter, came to know that the accused persons were not the owners of the land in respect of which they entered into an agreement with respondent no. 3. A part of the said land belonged to someone else. The accused persons had no right to sell the said land. The accused persons continued to postpone the registry on one pretext or another. 3. A part of the said land belonged to someone else. The accused persons had no right to sell the said land. The accused persons continued to postpone the registry on one pretext or another. No sale deed was executed despite several requests made by the respondent no. 3 in this behalf. Accused persons, knowing it fully well that they have entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent no. 3, sold the land to the third person, whereas they had no right to do so. They concealed and suppressed the material facts. When respondent no. 3 made a complaint to them, then a settlement deed was executed between the respondent no. 3 and the applicant on 13.05.2010. It was agreed between the parties that the applicant will pay rupees three crores fifty lacs to the respondent no. 3 within six months, failing which the respondent no. 3 will pay rupees fifty lacs to the applicant and get the sale deed executed in his favour within one month after the expiry of six months. The respondent no. 3 remained present before Sub- Registrar, Haridwar on 13-12-2010 along with money (Rupees Fifty Lacs) but the accused applicant did not come to the Sub- Registrar s office. Had respondent no. 3 come to know of evil design in the minds of the accused persons, he would not have paid rupees one crore seventy five lacs to the accused persons, who committed fraud with the respondent no. 3. Neither did they execute sale-deed, nor paid rupees three crore fifty lacs as per settlement deed. The respondent no. 3 again made a complaint to the applicant on 19.06.2012 at 4.00 PM, on which, the accused-applicant got annoyed and threatened him with dire consequences. A complaint was given to S.O., Kotwali Haridwar on 20.06.2012, but no action was taken on the same. Respondent no. 3 made a complaint to S.S.P. Haridwar on 29.06.2012, but still no action was taken against the accused persons. He was, therefore compelled to move application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. 3. A complaint was given to S.O., Kotwali Haridwar on 20.06.2012, but no action was taken on the same. Respondent no. 3 made a complaint to S.S.P. Haridwar on 29.06.2012, but still no action was taken against the accused persons. He was, therefore compelled to move application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants drew the attention to this court towards the deed of settlement (dated 13.05.2010), receipt dated 26.11.2004, agreement dated 26-11-2004 entered into between the parties, the copy of sale deed whereby the land was sold to Parag Gupta, the certified copy of the judgment rendered by Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Haridwar on 28.05.2013, copy of the plaint filed on behalf of applicant in original suit no. 167/2012 filed before learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar and submitted, among other things, that the dispute between the parties is predominately of civil nature, the F.I.R. was lodged by the respondent no. 3 to pressurise the applicant to execute the sale deed, the same is filed with ulterior motive, non-encumbrance certificate was obtained by the applicant to show that he was the owner of the land, the F.I.R. was lodged after two years of execution of settlement deed, whereas the settlement deed was executed on 13.05.2010, the F.I.R. was lodged on 07.10.2012, Parag Gupta and Sachin Gupta (respondent no. 3) were closely associated with each other, the applicant owed civil liability, if any, the F.I.R. was nothing but a pressure tactics to get the agreement and sale-deed executed, and therefore this court should intervene and quash the F.I.R. He also prayed that the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, on the other hand, submitted that the investigation revealed that Sheesa Singh was dead. There could not be power of attorney of a dead man. The sale deed was executed through the power of attorney of a dead man. There was ex parte mutation. The accused persons knew that they were not the owners of the land, in respect of which they entered into agreement to sell, and hence, the criminal intention on the part of accused persons was on the fore from the very beginning. According to learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, the applicant should be asked to go before the Magistrate concerned and face trial. 5. According to learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, the applicant should be asked to go before the Magistrate concerned and face trial. 5. Hon ble Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986, has laid down certain principles in respect of exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Some of the important principles and the comments thereon are: i. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere. • The uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of this case and the documents submitted herewith, prima facie, establish the offence. ii. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence. • On the face of it, there is compliance with the requirements of the offence. It cannot be said that, prima facie, no offence was made out. iii. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge. • The criminal case may result into acquittal. It may go otherwise also. The chances are equal. But the same may be ascertained after the meticulous examination of the evidence. At present the same is neither available, nor required. iv. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loathe to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers. • Neither any grave error is visible at this stage nor any miscarriage of justice is apparent on the face of record. • Neither any grave error is visible at this stage nor any miscarriage of justice is apparent on the face of record. v. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. It may be purely a civil wrong or purely a criminal offence or a civil wrong as also a criminal offence constituting both on the same set of facts. But if the records disclose commission of a criminal offence and the ingredients of the offence are satisfied, then such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because a civil wrong has also been committed. The power cannot be invoked to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The factual foundation and ingredients of an offence being satisfied, the court will not either dismiss a complaint or quash such proceeding in exercise of its original jurisdiction. • Record discloses commission of a cognizable offence and the ingredients of the offence are, prima facie, satisfied. Once the factual foundation and ingredients of offences are satisfied, there is no occasion to quash the proceedings. vi. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction, the Court concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice. • Once it is prima facie found that the offences are constituted (not proved), there is no question to hold that the same will amount to the abuse of process of Court. 6. According to Hon ble Apex Court the following steps should be followed by the High Courts to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing of proceedings raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. [Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 ] 1. Step one: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? • The reply in the context of this case is, cannot be said at this stage . P.C. [Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330 ] 1. Step one: Whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? • The reply in the context of this case is, cannot be said at this stage . 2. Step two: Whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? • As of now, the reply is in the negative. 3. Step three: Whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? • The reply is- The prosecution has refuted a part of the material. It cannot be said at this stage that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution. 4. Step four: Whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? • The reply, as of now, is in the negative. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. • Since the replies to all the aforesaid steps are not in favour of the accused-applicant, therefore, the application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot succeed. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of this Court towards the rulings of Dalip Kaur & others v. Jagnar Singh & Anr., 2009 AIR SCW 5117; Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & others v. State of Punjab & others, 2009 AIR SCW 3976; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. P.C. cannot succeed. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant also drew the attention of this Court towards the rulings of Dalip Kaur & others v. Jagnar Singh & Anr., 2009 AIR SCW 5117; Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & others v. State of Punjab & others, 2009 AIR SCW 3976; Ram Biraji Devi & Anr. v. Umesh Kumar Singh & Anr., AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2035 and Inder Mohan Goswami and another v. State of Uttaranchal and others, (2008)1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 259. It was held in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia s case (supra) that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to have been made out. According to allegations leveled by the respondent no. 3 against the applicant, the applicant had the culpable intention to cheat respondent no. 3. This Court cannot go into the mind of the applicant at this stage to ascertain as to whether he had culpable intention at the time of making initial promise or not, in exercise of it s jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C. It may be noted here that Harmanpreet s case (supra) was heard in criminal appeal after the evidence was led by the parties. In Dalip Kaur s case (supra) it was held by the Hon ble Supreme Court that pure and simple breach of contract of sale does not constitute offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. Dalip Kaur s case (supra) was also heard as criminal appeal and , therefore, the Hon ble Court had occasion to see as to whether it was a pure and simple breach of contract of sale or fraudulent business intention was there or not? Ram Biraji Devi s case (supra) was also heard as criminal appeal, in which the Hon ble Court had occasion to look into the criminal liability of cheating and criminal breach of trust on the basis of the facts of the case, laid through evidence. Ram Biraji Devi s case (supra) was also heard as criminal appeal, in which the Hon ble Court had occasion to look into the criminal liability of cheating and criminal breach of trust on the basis of the facts of the case, laid through evidence. In the absence of evidence led by the parties, this Court, under Section 482 Cr. P.C., cannot look into the facts in such wider perspective, as is available to an appellate court. 8. It was held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Indra Mohan s case (supra) that while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. The Hon ble Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts, in the same vein, not to stifle a legitimate prosecution. If all the averments made in the first information report and the documents filed in support thereof are taken note of, cognizable offences are prima facie made out against the applicant in the instant case. It cannot thus be said that the dispute is purely of civil nature. 9. The High Court in exercise of it s powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. does not function as a court of appeal or revision. Hon ble Apex Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr. P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr. P.C. should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. [State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Kori, (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 247]. 10. Application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. It is, however, provided in the interest of justice that if the accused-applicant surrenders before the Court below and moves application for bail, his bail application shall be decided by the Court concerned as expeditiously as possible and without unreasonable delay.