Judgment : 1. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 to quash the proceedings in Crime No.92 of 2012 of Chodavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, for the offence punishable under Section 420, read with 34 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts required to be considered for disposal of the criminal petition may be stated as follows: The 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 are friends. It is the version of the defacto-complainant that he intended to sell away his shop rooms at Chodavaram in the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 to meet his financial commitments, informed the same to A.1 to A.3 and requested them to find out the intending purchasers. A.1 asked him to give the original sale deed dated 8.3.2002 pertaining to the property and accordingly he gave the same to A.1. Subsequently, A.2, with a view to start a business at Visakhapatnam, approached the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Visakhapatnam and obtained loan from it. The defacto-complainant and A.3 approached the Bank in the first week of January, 2008 at the time of obtaining loan from the Bank whereat the defacto-complainant signed on some papers as an identifying witness of A.2. 3. It is alleged by the defacto-complainant that in February, 2011 he came to know through one of his friends Mr. Babu that the title deed relating to the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was with the bank and the said Babu found the bank officials discussing about the said document. On that, the defacto-complainant approached A.1 and asked him to return the original sale deed dated 8.3.2002 given to him for the purpose of securing the intending purchasers of the property. A.1 allegedly dragged on the issue for sometime and ultimately stated that the said document was misplaced. When the defacto-complainant asked the other accused, they also stated that it was misplaced, but not given to the bank and, therefore, he need not worry about it. Subsequently, the defacto-complainant along with his friends went to the bank and met the Branch Manager, but the Branch Manager did not furnish any information and he also dragged on the matter on one pretext or the other and asked the defacto-complainant to bring A.2 and A.3 to him. Subsequently, the defacto-complainant along with his friends went to the bank and met the Branch Manager, but the Branch Manager did not furnish any information and he also dragged on the matter on one pretext or the other and asked the defacto-complainant to bring A.2 and A.3 to him. When the defacto-complainant requested the accused to come to the bank, they did not come to the bank and were postponing the issue on one pretext or the other and ultimately they refused to come to the bank. The defacto-complainant informed the Branch Manager of the bank about the refusal of the accused to come to the bank. Thereupon it is stated that the defacto complainant gave a request letter in writing to the Branch Manager soliciting information regarding the registered sale deed dated 8.3.2002 and the Branch Manager told him that he would respond to the request of the complainant after obtaining legal opinion. 4. Thereafter the defacto-complainant filed a pre-litigation case before the Taluk Legal Services Committee, Chodavaram, against the accused and the Manager of the Bank, but they did not turn up even after receiving notices and ultimately the matter was closed. 5. Subsequently, the bank initiated proceedings under Securitisationand Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) in respect of the loan obtained by A.2 by proceeding against the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 of the defacto-complainant, which was offered as a security for the loan obtained by A.2. According to the defacto-complainant, then only he came to know about the fact that his signatures were obtained as a guarantor and that his property was given as a security for the aforesaid loan. The property of the defacto-complainant covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was brought to sale in the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI Act. Thereupon the defacto-complainant approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in March, 2012 and obtained stay of sale of his property in the auction proposed to be conducted by the bank. 6. Thereafter the defacto-complainant allegedly lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Chodavaram Police Station, but the police did not take any action. Then he filed a private complaint before the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. 6. Thereafter the defacto-complainant allegedly lodged a complaint with the Station House Officer, Chodavaram Police Station, but the police did not take any action. Then he filed a private complaint before the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. Basing on referred complaint, the Station House Officer, Chodavaram Police Station registered a case in Crime No.92 of 2012 for the offence under Section 420, r/w. 34 I.P.C., which is now pending investigation. The present criminal petition is filed to quash the investigation in the aforesaid crime. 7. I have heard Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 as well as Sri M.V. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and the Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 submits that the defacto-complainant voluntarily acted as a guarantor and offered the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 as a security for the loan obtained by A.2 from the bank. Due to the financial constraints, A.2 failed to repay the installments of loan borrowed from the bank in time, which resulted in initiation of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. After initiation of the said proceedings, the defacto-complainant filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate falsely alleging that he was taken by the accused to the bank only to act as an identifying witness and that they never informed him that the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was given as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank. According to the learned counsel, the allegations made in the complaint obviously indicate that they are ex-facie false and invented for the purpose of filing the present complaint. Therefore, registering a crime basing on the said complaint and conducting investigation is nothing but abuse of process of law and, therefore, the F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, leaned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant submits that the defacto-complainant was never informed by the accused that his property was given as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank. 9. On the other hand, leaned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant submits that the defacto-complainant was never informed by the accused that his property was given as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank. They played fraud on the defacto-complainant and this Court is not supposed to evaluate the evidence while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel submits that all the contentions raised by the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 in the criminal petition have to be put-forth before the trial Court and they have to be proved during the trial, but the investigation cannot be quashed at the threshold. 10. It is true that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is not supposed to evaluate the evidence. However, this Court can scrutinize the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R./complaint/charge sheet. When the allegations are examined in the light of the admitted facts and it is found that the allegations are ex-facie false or inherently improbable, this Court can invoke its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. 11. In the instant case, admittedly A.2 obtained loan from the bank and on the date of submitting the papers to the bank, the defacto-complainant went along with A.1 to A.3 to the bank. The contention of the defacto-complainant is that he was told that he had to act as an identifying witness and for the said purpose signatures were obtained from him. But the case of the accused is that the defacto-complainant voluntarily, besides acting as an identifying witness, offered his property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank. The version of the defacto-complainant is that he handed over the original sale deed dated 8.3.2002 to A.1 for the purpose of securing intending purchasers of the property as he wanted to sell away the property. The complainant did not state in the complaint as to when, in fact, he handed over the sale deed to A.1. 12. In any event, the fact remains that the sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was given as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank in the year 2008. The defacto-complainant filed the present complaint on 16.7.2012. Therefore, the sale deed was admittedly with A.1 for a period of four years. 12. In any event, the fact remains that the sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was given as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank in the year 2008. The defacto-complainant filed the present complaint on 16.7.2012. Therefore, the sale deed was admittedly with A.1 for a period of four years. In fact, from the case set-out by the defacto-complainant, the sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was with A.1 even much prior to 2008. Therefore, it is not understandable as to why the defacto-complainant kept quiet without asking A.1 to return the sale deed. The defacto-complainant did not even say as to whether A.1 informed the names of any purchasers, who were intending to purchase the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002. Further, the defacto-complainant filed the present complaint only after the bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, bringing the property for attachment and sale. The defacto-complainant approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Visakhapatnam in respect of attachment and sale of the property by raising the same contentions before the Tribunal and the same is pending adjudication before the Tribunal. Unless a finding is recorded by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in favour of the defacto-complainant to the effect that he was misled by A.1 to A.3 and they gave the property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank without the knowledge of the defacto-complainant, it is quite pre-mature to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. 13. The dispute between the parties, in my considered view, is basically of civil in nature and it arose on account of non-payment of instalments by A.2 to the bank. It seems obviously that the defacto-complainant, with a view to pressurize A.2 to repay the loan amount, filed the present compliant alleging that without his knowledge his property covered by sale deed dated 8.3.2002 was given as a security for the loan borrowed by A.2 from the bank. The allegations levelled in the complaint are inherently improbable and manifestly untrue. If the said allegations are put to strict scrutiny by this Court, they appear to be invented by the defacto-complainant for the purpose of filing a criminal case against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. The allegations levelled in the complaint are inherently improbable and manifestly untrue. If the said allegations are put to strict scrutiny by this Court, they appear to be invented by the defacto-complainant for the purpose of filing a criminal case against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3. If the investigation is allowed to continue on the basis of the said complaint, it is nothing but abuse of the process of law and ultimately would result in mis-carriage of justice. 14. The main object of jurisdiction and powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to prevent abuse of process of law and mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, I am of the considered view that if the investigation is allowed to continue, it would certainly result in mis-carriage of justice. 15. In view of the above, this criminal petition is allowed and the investigation in Crime No.92 of 2012 of Chodavaram Police Station, Visakhapatnam District, initiated against the petitioners/A.1 to A.3 is quashed. 16. In view of disposal of the criminal petition, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.