JUDGMENT : Applicant-original accused in I-C.R No. 213 of 2013 registered with Patan City “B” Division Police Station has preferred this Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC” for short) seeking quashment of the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2 herein. 2. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective sides. Learned advocate Mr. M.M Barot appearing for the applicant vehemently urged that the applicant has not committed any offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 192 & 196 IPC. However, the respondent no. 2 has filed a false and frivolous complaint with a mala fide intention, and therefore, the same is not legally sustainable against him. He further urged that the petitioner is wrongly implicated in the offence alleged. That, civil litigations are going on between the present petitioner and others; including the complainant regarding money recovered, and therefore, the said dispute is of civil nature and the respondent no. 2 has tried to give criminal colour to it by falsely implicating the petitioner in the offence alleged. That the present respondent no.2 has also filed a Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Patan. That, no cognizance under Section 192 (1) CrPC can be taken against the petitioner except the complaint in writing is made by some or such officer of the Court as that Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. That, the respondent no. 2 has no right to file such a complaint before the Police. That, he is a well-known person and engaged in contract business, and therefore, he would not commit the offence of Rs. 1 lac only. That, he has also filed a counter claim for Rs. 1,09,829/= and had filed reply in Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011 wherein he has mentioned that he had given the amount to the original complainant and in that regard, he has received cheque, and therefore, there is no question of arising of question of forgery or cheating. That, marriage of petitioner’s daughter was fixed on 23rd December 2013 and just to involve in a false offence, this complaint was filed by the respondent no. 2. Therefore, it was requested by learned advocate Mr. That, marriage of petitioner’s daughter was fixed on 23rd December 2013 and just to involve in a false offence, this complaint was filed by the respondent no. 2. Therefore, it was requested by learned advocate Mr. Barot to quash the impugned FIR, being I-C.R No. 214 of 2013 registered with Patan City “B” Division Police Station, by allowing this Application. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu K.Bhaya appearing for the respondent no. 2-original complainant has strongly objected the submissions made for and on behalf of the applicant. She urged that two blank cheques signed by the respondent no. 2 bearing No. 279639 and 279640 dated 20th August 2013 were found missing by him. That, Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011 for recovery of the amount was filed wherein counter claim was made by the present petitioner. That, the learned Judge was pleased to pass an order produced on page 123 of the paper-book. That, the disputed cheque amounting Rs. 1,09,729/= dated 15th April 2009 drawn in favour of Harsh Construction was produced by the petitioner. That, the counter-foil of the cheque bearing No. 279639 was written in favour of M/s. R.M Traders. That, the petitioner himself has admitted in the civil proceedings that the writing on the body part of the cheque was made by him. That, M/s. Harsh Construction Company came into existence on 7th November 2013 and the cheque in dispute was issued on 31st March 2009. That, the closing balance for the period from 1st April 2008 to 30th March 2009 was shown as Rs. 1,09,729/= only. That, as the closing balance was not possible as the balance amount before issuing the cheque in dispute. That the cheque book missed by the respondent no. 2 was taken out by the petitioner and by filling in the details as well as amount, he has committed forgery and cheating, as per the provisions mentioned in the complaint. That, in a civil proceedings also, counter claim made by the petitioner was not accepted by the Court by passing a detailed order, the said Civil Suit filed by the respondent no. 2 was allowed by the Court. That, Hawala entry dated 15th June 2008 shows name of Mr. Patel Rajendrakumar Chaturbhai for an amount of Rs. 12,77,481=00 only was not accepted by the Civil Court. That, the petitioner had sought permission to produce the cheque in dispute in civil proceedings. 2 was allowed by the Court. That, Hawala entry dated 15th June 2008 shows name of Mr. Patel Rajendrakumar Chaturbhai for an amount of Rs. 12,77,481=00 only was not accepted by the Civil Court. That, the petitioner had sought permission to produce the cheque in dispute in civil proceedings. That, there was no qustion of filing a detailed complaint, as submitted by the petitioner because as and when he came to know about the custody of the cheque in dispute with the petitioner, and on passing the order by the Civil Court, the respondent no. 2 has filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner. That entry dated 15th June 2008 was a forged entry made by the petitioner; as observed by the Civil Court. That another Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2009 was partly allowed by the Court. That, ingredients of the provisions under Penal Code are prima facie established against the petitioner. Ultimately, it was urged by learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya to dismiss the petition. 4. Against this, learned advocate Mr. Barot in reply urged that against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, a Civil Appeal is preferred by the petitioner, which is pending before the competent court of law. That, the counter-foil of the cheque was with the respondent no. 2 and therefore no forged documents were created by the petitioner. 5. Learned APP Ms. Moxa Thakker appearing for the respondent no.1-State supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya appearing for the respondent no.2-original complainant and she too requested this Court to dismiss the present Application. 6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates appearing for the respective sides and on perusal of the documents produced on the record of the case, it appears that on 25th January 2009, partner of the respondent no.2-Mr. Nirav R. Patel when was going towards his factory on his scooter, he lost his purse containing two signed cheques bearing Nos. 279639 and 279640 along with Registration Book of his motor car and other documents and some cash amount. The said partner of the respondent no.2-Mr. Nirav R. Patel made a report on affidavit declaring the fact of loss of cheque and other belongings before the Patan City Police Station on the very day. 279639 and 279640 along with Registration Book of his motor car and other documents and some cash amount. The said partner of the respondent no.2-Mr. Nirav R. Patel made a report on affidavit declaring the fact of loss of cheque and other belongings before the Patan City Police Station on the very day. It was clearly declared that the above said two cheques were bearing signature of the respondent no.2. It appears from the document produced on record that one Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011 was instituted by the respondent no. 2 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Patan on 5th July 2011 against the petitioner, wherein written statement was filed by the present petitioner on 23rd August 2011. In the said Civil Suit, the respondent no. 2 was cross examined by the petitioner on 17th June 2013 and 12th August 2013, but the petitioner has not referred to any cheque nor produced any cheque nor cross examined the respondent no. 2 about the cheque. The written statement filed by the petitioner in Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011, issues were framed by the Court. Copy of the deposition and cross examination of the respondent no. 2 are produced on the record. It appears that the petitioner thereafter submitted an application for granting permission for production of documents vide Exh. 57 on 14th October 2013 in the above said Special Civil Suit alleging that the cheque no. 279639 was lost and was allegedly found on search and hence, it was produced after delay. The said application submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the Court on 4th December 2013. Thereafter, the respondent came to knowledge that the said cheque was manipulated with a forged writing thereon. As the said cheque was a valuable security, the respondent no. 2-complainant searched the counter foils of the aforesaid two cheques and came to know that on counter foils of the above said two cheques were written by the petitioner. It also appears from the documents produced on record that the copy of the Accounts Statement dated 1st April 2008 of M/s. Harsh Construction Company was produced before the Civil Court vide Exh. 62. It also appears that the above firm- M/s. Harsh Construction Company came into existence on 1st October 2008, and therefore, there was no existence of M/s. Harsh Construction Company on 1st April 2008. 62. It also appears that the above firm- M/s. Harsh Construction Company came into existence on 1st October 2008, and therefore, there was no existence of M/s. Harsh Construction Company on 1st April 2008. Deposition of the petitioner was recorded in the above Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011 on 10th December 2013 and he was cross examined on 2nd January 2014 in which he has admitted that counter foils of Cheque No. 279639 and 279640 were written by him by writing “R.M Traders” and “R.M Fuel Station”. He also admits in his cross examination that Harsh Construction Company came into existence from 1st October 2008 and same was registered in Patan Nagarpalika. He has also admitted that in the body of the cheque, the writings were not of Mr. Nirav R. Patel. The accounts of the said firm-M/s. Harsh Construction Company were written from the date when it came into existence. Copy of the deposition and cross examination are produced on the record as well as Cheque No. 279639, Ledger of Harsh Construction Company, copy of application for granting permission to produce documents in the cross examination by the respondent no. 2 are also produced on the record. Police Inspector, Patan City Police Station has also issued a Certificate dated 21st August 2013, which is also produced on the record. Copy of the counter foils of cheque nos. 279639 & 279640 are also produced on record. Accounts statement shows that on 27th January 2009, an endorsement to “Stop Payment of the cheque” was made by the Bank. A report submitted to Patan City Police Station is also produced on the record as well as copy of the information received by the respondent no. 2 from Patan Nagarpalika showing that Harsh Construction Company came into existence on 1st October 2008 are also produced on record. It also appears that the above said Special Civil Suit No. 44 of 2011 against the petitioner was decreed in favour of the respondent no. 2. The judgment passed by the learned Judge is also produced on the record. Further, it appears that another Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2009 was instituted by the respondent no. 2 against Vikas Construction Company and another for recovery of amount of Rs. 14,81,877/= on 14th December 2009. 2. The judgment passed by the learned Judge is also produced on the record. Further, it appears that another Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2009 was instituted by the respondent no. 2 against Vikas Construction Company and another for recovery of amount of Rs. 14,81,877/= on 14th December 2009. In the aforesaid Special Civil Suit, Vikas Construction Company filed its written statement on 24th December 2009 contending therein that by Hawalla of Rs. 12,77,481/= it was paid to the petitioner at the instance of the respondent no.2-original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2009. It was further contended by the defendant Vikas Construction Company in the written statement that Patel Nirav R.-partner of firm of the respondent no. 2 has signed the ledger account witnessing this alleged hawalla. That no documents were produced before the Court by the said Vikas Construction Company in the above suit. Deposition of respondent no. 2 was recorded in the above suit on 1st October 2012. He was cross examined by Vikas Construction Company on 11th April 2013. Till then, no documentary evidence of Hawalla was produced before the Court. Vide Exh. 67 permission was sought for producing the documents by the defendant, but it was rejected by the Court on 4th December 2013. The respondent no. 2 came to know that the petitioner and partners of aforesaid Vikas Construction Company have conspired and forged accounts statement with forged seal, stamp of “Maharaja Earth Movers and thereby forged signature of Nirav Rameshchandra Patel by the petitioner. The respondent no.2 appears to have send a photo copy of the disputed signature allegedly to be of Nirav Rameshchandra Patel in the forged document of Hawalla for the opinion of the Examiner (retired), Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Gujarat-Shri U.V Upadhyaya alongwith natural signature of Mr. Nirav Rameshchandra Patel and his specimen signature for his examination. Upon examination of all the documents, Examiner-Shri Upadhyay has sent his opinion with the reasons in writing that, “..Resultant upon a careful and minute examination of all the documents relating to this case, with the help of scientific aids, I am of the opinion that, “..the red encircled disputed signature marked D (in xerox copy of (certified copy of dastaveji list Exh. 67) “Utaro” “Maharaja Earth Movers (Ledger Account) from 01.06.2008 to 31.03.2009 under stamp impression of Maharaja Earth Movers, Partner) is not written by the writer of blue encircled specimen signatures marked S1 to S20 (On original stamp paper of Rs. 100/= No. AF658118 on affidavit before notary Sr. No. 2358 dated 07.12.2013) and blue encircled natural signatures marked N1, N2, N3 (In notarized Xerox copy of Mulmukhtyarnmu yane Power of Attorney on Rs. 100/= Stamp Paper no. AA-199304 dated 07/05/2013, Notary Sr. No. 140 dated 07.05.2013 at page no. 1, 2, 3)”. 7. Thereafter, it appears that a complaint was lodged on 10th December 2013 before the Patan City “B” Division Police Station against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 406, 192, 196 IPC. It also appears from the documents produced on the record that Special Civil Suit No. 33 of 2009 filed against Vikas Construction Company before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Patan is decreed and judgment is produced by the respondent no.2. Prima facie, it is impressed upon this Court that the petitioner in collusion with partners of Vikas Construction Company has committed an offence by manipulating and creating a false and forged valuable security with a mala fide intention to defeat the legal dues of the respondent no. 2 using forged documents as genuine before the Civil Court. In this case, it would be necessary for the investigating agency to investigate the offence alleged. Considering the record, it cannot be said that the FIR is barred by provisions of Section 195 CrPC. At this stage, Section 195 (1)(B) (22) CrPC would not be applicable, and therefore, FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 would be maintainable in accordance with law. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Barot in support of his arguments, placed heavy reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Dr. S. Dutta v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1966 SC 523 wherein forged documents were produced or given in evidence by a person other than party to the proceeding in a Court. The Apex Court, in backdrop of these facts, held that, “.. S. Dutta v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 1966 SC 523 wherein forged documents were produced or given in evidence by a person other than party to the proceeding in a Court. The Apex Court, in backdrop of these facts, held that, “.. prosecution in respect of offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199 and 200 (amongst others) committed in a judicial proceeding by a person (whether a party or not) requires a complaint in writing of the Court before which the offence is committed or of the Court to which such Court is subordinate.” 9. In the instant case, the petitioner has filled up body as well as counter foil of the cheques in his own writing and thereafter, they were produced before the Civil Court. Findings of the Civil Court are against the petitioner for Hawalla too. Not only in the instant case forged documents were produced before the Civil Court, but it involves cheating and forgery both committed by the petitioner. Therefore, as held by the Apex Court in case of International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials (ARCI) & Ors. vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 348 , “..the distinction between mere breach of contract and the cheating would depend upon intention of accused at the time of alleged inducement. If it is established that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the very time when he made a promise and entered into a transaction with complainant to part with his property or money, then liability is criminal and accused is guilty of offence of cheating. However, if all that is established is that a representation made by accused was subsequently not kept, criminal liability cannot be foisted on accused and the only right which complainant acquires is remedy for breach of contract in civil Court. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown at the beginning of the transaction.” 10. For the foregoing reasons and in light of decision of the Apex Court in case of International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials (ARCI) & Ors. vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited & Ors. For the foregoing reasons and in light of decision of the Apex Court in case of International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy & New Materials (ARCI) & Ors. vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics Private Limited & Ors. (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that inherent powers vested under Section 482 CrPC in the facts of the present case cannot be exercised, and therefore, the present petition fails and is dismissed accordingly. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. 11. As a parting note, it is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall come in the way of either side, in pleading their case either before the Civil or Criminal court concerned, which obviously shall decide the matter in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the fact of rejection of this Application. 12. Learned advocate Shri Mrudul M Barot appearing for the applicant requested to stay this order for a period of one month, as his client would like to approach the higher forum. Considering the prayer made, let this order be stayed and shall not be implemented for a period of one month from today.