JUDGMENT 1. This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No.1233/2010 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. A private complaint which was filed against the petitioners was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C., came to be registered as Cr.No.251/2008 of Nallakunta Police Station against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 415 IPC. The Police investigated into the matter and filed charge sheet which was taken on file as CC No.1233/2010 against all the petitioners. 3. The allegations in the charge sheet are as under: The first petitioner (A-1) is the wife of the second petitioner (A-2) and the third petitioner is the son of A-1 and A-2. It is alleged that A-1 is a money lender and was doing money lending business without obtaining any licence from the competent authority through A-2 and A-3. L.W.1 availed a loan of Rs.5 lakhs from A-1 and executed an agreement of sale dt. 3-8-2005 in respect of a flat, the market value of which being Rs.30 lakhs. Apart from execution of agreement of sale, A-2 insisted for execution of blank promissory note in favour of A-1. Since L.W.1 was in need of money, she was constrained to abide by the terms and conditions and availed loan from A-1 through A-2 to a tune of Rs.5 lakhs on different dates in the month of August, 2005. The charge sheet further discloses that prior to receipt of loan from A-1, L.W.1 paid advance interest and other charges to a tune of Rs.24,000/- on 4-8-2005 by depositing the said amount in the joint account bearing No.3518 at Andhra Bank, Himayathnagar Branch, Hyderabad. It is further stated that after depositing the said amount of Rs.24,000/-, L.W.1 issued cheques to a tune of Rs.4,50,000/- towards repayment of loan to A-1 and A-2 in the month of September, 2006. When the accused demanded L.W.1 to repay the loan amount, cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued in favour of A-3 towards part payment of due amount and the said cheque was encashed on 27-9-2006 by A-3. When the accused demanded L.W.1 to repay the loan amount, cheque for Rs.50,000/- was issued in favour of A-3 towards part payment of due amount and the said cheque was encashed on 27-9-2006 by A-3. It is alleged that an agreement of sale was executed in favour of A-1 only as a security for the loan availed by L.W.1 and the claim of the accused, that L.W.1 failed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of A-1 in spite of repeated requests is created for the purpose of filing CC No.21/2007 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (for short “the District Forum”) with a view to usurp the flat No.302 owned by L.W.1 for a petty amount of Rs.10,50,000/-, thus causing wrongful loss to L.W.1 to a tune of more than Rs.20 lakhs. It is thus alleged that the circumstances evidently prove that the accused committed offences of cheating, criminal breach of trust, apart from other offences in order to usurp the valuable property i.e., flat in question in order to cause wrongful loss to L.W.1 to a tune of more than Rs.20 lakhs. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contends that even accepting the allegations made in the charge sheet to be true, no offence is made out against the petitioners. He would further contend that even if the entire allegations are taken to be true, it is purely a civil dispute and the issue involved in the present case is already decided by the District Forum which was upheld in all material aspects by the State Commission. Initiation of proceedings after judgment of the State Commission is only with a view to wreck vengeance against the petitioners and the same has been instituted with a mala fide intention. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that a plain reading of the charge sheet would prima facie disclose the offences alleged against the petitioners and this court should not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the said proceedings. According to him, there is no need for the informant-L.W.1 to file a false complaint. According to him, there is no need for the informant-L.W.1 to file a false complaint. According to him, the plea of fraud in execution of agreement of sale which was disbelieved by the District Forum is untenable because in summary proceedings, there is no scope for elaborate trial or enquiry, as such it can never be said that the element of fraud would be unearthed in summary proceedings. He would further contend that the investigation done by the police and the material collected during the course of investigation from Indian Bank and Andhra Bank would clinchingly establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such it cannot be said that initiation of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of court. 6. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), the Supreme Court in the backdrop of interpretation of various relevant provisions of the Cr. P. C. under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. gave the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The broad guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard are:- "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 7. Section 482 Cr.P.C saves the inherent power of the High Court and, thereunder, nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not confer any new power on the High Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court possessed even before the enactment of the Code. All courts whether civil or criminal, in the absence of any express provision, possess, as inherent in their constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right and to undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice on the principle quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest (when the law gives a person anything it gives him that without which it cannot exist). Inherent jurisdiction under the Section, though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully, with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and, if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has the power to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the power, the Court would be justified in quashing any proceeding if it finds that initiation/continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of Court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the material to assess what the complainant has alleged, and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. (State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa ( (2002) 3 SCC 89 ). 8. Keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the above referred cases, I shall now proceed to deal with the matter. 9. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner herein filed CC No.21/2007 before the District Forum seeking delivery of a flat bearing No.302 pursuant to an agreement of sale dt. 3-8-2005 and register the same in favour of the first petitioner. By an order dt. 20-9-2007, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to register flat bearing No.302 in III floor admeasuring 912 sq.ft. bearing Municipal No.2-2-7/5/B, situated near Vidya Nagar Bridge, Adikmet, Hyderabad after receiving balance of sale consideration of Rs.2,90,000/- from the complainant. The opposite party was further directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% on Rs.7,60,000/- w.e.f. 4-8-2006 ie., the date on which the opposite party was supposed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed FA No.1771/2007 before the State Commission. By its judgment dt. The opposite party was further directed to pay interest at the rate of 18% on Rs.7,60,000/- w.e.f. 4-8-2006 ie., the date on which the opposite party was supposed to deliver possession of the flat to the complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent herein filed FA No.1771/2007 before the State Commission. By its judgment dt. 3-10-2008, the State Commission allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order of the District Forum with regard to direction to the opposite party to register the flat but however confirmed the order in all other aspects. Further, the appellant therein was directed to comply with the order within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the respondent herein preferred RP No.4481/2008 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, N e w Delhi. By an order dt. 21-11-2008, the National Commission confirmed the order of the State Commission. Thereafter, the respondent herein filed Writ Petition No.2061/2010 before this Honourable Court seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed in FA No.20/2009 in EA No.36/2008 in CC No.21/2007. The present complaint was lodged on 27-10-2008 and after reference under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., it was registered as Cr.No.251/2008 of Nallakunta Police Station on 1-11-2008. As seen above, the agreement of sale between the first petitioner and the second respondent which is the subject matter of dispute in the present case is dt. 3-8-2005. The District Forum allowed the complaint filed by the first petitioner on 20-9-2007.The appeal filed by the respondent herein was allowed in part on 3-10-2008 and thereafter RP was disposed of by the National Commission on 21-11-2008. The present case was registered nearly a month after disposal of the appeal by the State Commission. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the complainant has not come forward with the said complaint at least after the disposal of the case by the District Forum on 20-9-2007, wherein a categorical finding was given with regard to agreement of sale. Nearly three years after execution of the agreement of sale, a private complaint is filed questioning the very execution of agreement of sale in favour of the first petitioner in the year 2005. Nearly three years after execution of the agreement of sale, a private complaint is filed questioning the very execution of agreement of sale in favour of the first petitioner in the year 2005. The plea that the said agreement of sale was executed as security for the loan of Rs.5 lakhs taken by the second respondent was agitated before the District Forum in CC No.21/2007 and the same was rejected. The relevant portion of the said finding in the order of the District Forum is extracted hereunder: “According to the complainant the balance of sale consideration of Rs.2,90,000/- will be paid at the time of registration and after taking vacant possession of the flat. Hence, the opposite party is liable to register the flat and to handover delivery of vacant possession of flat bearing No.302 in third floor admeasuring 912 sft. As the opposite party has not registered and handover the possession of the flat to the complainant since 3-8-2005 the opposite party is liable to pay interest at 18% p.a., with effect from 4-8-2006 on the amount of Rs.7,60,000/- till the date of realization and also it is hereby directed that the opposite party shall pay a compensation of Rs.15000/- top the complainant and also costs of Rs.2000/-.” The said findings were confirmed by the State Forum which are as under: “The appellant submits that the agreement of sale Ex.A-1 was executed only towards the security for repayment of loan availed by the opposite party from the complainant as is evidenced from Exs.B-1to B-3. The appellant further submits that the money lending transaction by the complainant through her husband and son is proved through Exs.B-1 and B-2 which are in hand writing of the complainant. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable. The appellant has not lead any evidence. The appellant submits that the dispute relates to breach of contract and non performance of the statutory duty and it cannot be entertained by the Consumer Fora. The submission made by the appellant is not sustainable. 10. In spite of a clear finding by the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission with regard to the purpose for which the agreement of sale was executed, no explanation is forth coming as to why it took such a long time to lodge a complaint before the police. 10. In spite of a clear finding by the District Forum which was confirmed by the State Commission with regard to the purpose for which the agreement of sale was executed, no explanation is forth coming as to why it took such a long time to lodge a complaint before the police. Having lost in both the forums and having sensed that the informant will not get any relief even before the National Forum, the private complaint is instituted with a mala fide intention only with a view to wreck vengeance against the petitioners and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. Apart from the fact that the complaint has been instituted with a mala fide intention, the allegations made in the complaint/charge sheet even accepting at their face value do not constitute the ingredients for the offences punishable under sections 415, 420 and 406 IPC. The fact that the second respondent executed an agreement of sale dt. 3-8-2005 in favour of the first petitioner is not in dispute. The finding of the District Forum that the said agreement of sale was executed by the respondent in favour of the first petitioner towards purchase of flat bearing No.302 was confirmed not only by the State Commission but also by the National Commission. The plea that it was executed as security was negatived in all forums. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was wrongful loss to an extent of Rs.20 lakhs to the second respondent, as such it cannot be said that the second respondent was induced to execute the agreement of sale, thereby causing wrongful loss to the second respondent and wrongful gain to the petitioners. Hence, no offences under section 415 IPC is made out against the petitioners. 11. Section 406 IPC deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust. Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust which reads as under: “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly, misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". 12. 12. There is absolutely no allegation in the complaint that the property was entrusted to the petitioners and the said property was dishonestly misappropriated or converted to their own use in violation of any directions of law. A perusal of the order passed by District Forum would clearly show that the flat was still under construction and same was not yet handed over to the petitioners in spite of repeated requests by them. Infact, the National Commission in its order clearly observed that the plea of the petitioners was in relation to vacant possession of the flat. Such being the position, it cannot be said that there was any entrustment of property leading to misappropriation of the same or that the said property was converted to their own use in violation of any direction of law. 13. The Apex Court has time and again held that the courts should carefully examine the facts before it, for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala fide intention or with an ulterior motive of wrecking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. (vide : Chandrapal Singh and Ors. Vs. Maharaj Singh and Anr., AIR 1982 SC 1238 ; State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 ; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 ). 14. The case before us is similar to the one referred to above. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., AIR 1992 SC 604 ; G. Sagar Suri and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., AIR 2000 SC 754 ; and Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 531 ). 14. The case before us is similar to the one referred to above. Having lost before the District Forum and also before the State Commission, the present complaint was sought to be initiated with inordinate delay and without any explanation for the same. It is apparent that the said private complaint was filed only after meeting her waterloo in the District Forum. Obviously, it has been done with a view to harass the petitioners and with a view to wreck vengeance against them, falling within guideline No.7 as laid down in BHAJAN LAL’S CASE (1 supra). 15. Viewed from any angle, it is held that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1233/2010 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed.