JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Gupta for the Applicant and Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State, whereas learned advocate Mr. Masoom K. Shah for Respondent nos. 3 to 14. Perused the record. Petitioner is the original complainant, whereas Respondent nos. 3 to 14 are original accused before 7th Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad in Criminal Inquiry Case No.206 of 2014. Such criminal case is filed by the present petitioner as a complainant under Sections 406, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The sum and substance of the complaint filed by the petitioner-complainant is to the effect that private respondents have committed the offence under the aforesaid Sections by disclosing false information in the sale-deed while selling the property in question in as much as though the land was not sanctioned for non-agricultural purpose by the Revenue Authorities. It was stated in the sale-deed that the land is non-agricultural and therefore, the petitioner has to spend huge amount and to pay fine as well as charges for utilization of agricultural land for commercial and industrial activities. 3. To substantiate their submissions, the petitioner has produced a bunch of documents, which is taken on record and on perusal of such documents so also submission by the petitioner, it transpires that by registered sale-deed executed on 22.06.1990, private respondents have agreed to sell the land in question being land of village Saijpur Gopalpur bearing Survey No. 123/2 to one M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director, Ashokkumar Hariprasad Agrawal (Gupta). For the purpose agreement to sale was executed and registered on the same day. Perusal of such agreement to sale specifically confirms that, in fact, while executing such agreement to sale, the private respondents have categorically confirmed that the land in question is being used for agricultural purpose and it is to be converted for nonagricultural purpose at the cost of the seller i.e. private respondents herein, and for the purpose if any amount is to be paid to the government or any expense for such conversation, then it is to be borne by the seller and once the land has been converted for non-agricultural purpose then sellers have to execute a sale-deed in favour of the purchaser. The bunch of documents also shows one permission for construction on the land in question, which is dated 02.10.1994. However, thereafter, when actual sale-deed was executed on 03.05.1991 in favour of the same purchaser namely, M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. by private respondents amongst whom atleast two persons are absolutely illiterate since they have put their thumb impression on such sale agreement whereas in saledeed it is disclosed that the land in question is being utilized for processing house and factory i.e. for non-agricultural purpose by the purchaser from 22.06.1990 i.e. date of agreement to sale, and that since then the land is not used for agricultural purpose and therefore, the sale-deed is to be created for non-agricultural land and hence, there is no question of restriction of sale transaction under the Tenancy Act. Such disclosure is alleged to be considered as commission of offence under Section 420 contending that though land has never been approved for non-agricultural purpose, it is so stated in the sale-deed and thereby private respondents have committed offence under Sections 406, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The fact remains that the intention of the private respondents was never to sell agricultural land as nonagricultural land since they have categorically disclosed in the agreement to sale that it is being used for agricultural purpose and it is to be converted for non-agricultural purpose. However, when sale-deed is being executed, it seems that instead of seller, practically, it was the requirement of the purchaser to disclose that land is non-agricultural for different reasons viz. firstly, to confirm their possession of existing factory and processing house on the land in question and secondly, to avoid any objection or restriction in executing such sale-deed under the revenue laws including the Tenancy Act. It is also clear and obvious that atleast one of the sellers is illiterate and has put her thumb impression whereas another one is minor and therefore, they are not much aware about the complexity of such documents except getting the sale price that too jointly with other owners. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner-complainant that because of such wrongful disclosure when they had applied for converting the purpose of land from agricultural to non-agricultural, they have to deposit a huge amount of more than 11 lakhs and therefore, private respondents have committed offence of cheating. 5. It is further contended by the petitioner-complainant that because of such wrongful disclosure when they had applied for converting the purpose of land from agricultural to non-agricultural, they have to deposit a huge amount of more than 11 lakhs and therefore, private respondents have committed offence of cheating. Therefore, when improper disclosure can be cleared by payment of required charges, which is otherwise to be paid as and when purpose of land is to be converted from agricultural to non-agricultural, there is no substance in such statement also. At the most, it may invite the clause in sale-deed that such expense is to be borne by the seller and thereby, purchaser may have to pay such amount less against total consideration, which is almost 1.38 crores. 6. But the most interesting fact is to the effect that such agreement to sale and sale-deed is not in favour of the present petitioner, but it is in favour of one M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. only through its Managing Director, Ashokkumar Hariprasad Agrawal (Gupta) and therefore, if any cause of action or grievance is there, it would be settled by M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, Ahskokumar Hariprasad Agrawal (Gupta). 7. It seems that the complaint is practically filed because of the suit preferred by the private respondents against said M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. so also the present petitioner and one Motilal Purohit for cancellation of sale-deed in their favour on several grounds including the main ground that the agreement to sale and sale-deed have been void for non-compliance of its conditions. Therefore, practically, prima facie it transpires that present petition is as a counter blast of two civil litigations initiated by the private respondents for safeguarding their rights and title over the suit property. It was contended in such suit that title clearance and NA permission is to be cleared within six months and if it is not done within six months then that agreement to sale is to be forfeited automatically and that, in fact, sale-deed has been executed by the power of attorney holder of the private respondents and not by themself and therefore, the private respondents are seeking declaration that they are the owner of the suit land and that agreement to sale has become void and therefore, sale-deeds are also void. Therefore, it is clear that there is a civil dispute between the parties since the year 2013 when such suit was filed. 8. However, though there was sale-deed in favour of M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1991; in 1996 present petitioner has purchased the property again from the private respondents and M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd has endorsed such sale transaction as a confirming party. However, such document is executed by one Motilal Purohit as power of attorney holder of the present private respondents. Therefore, the fact remains that if M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. has purchased the property in 1991 from the private respondents then there is no reason for entering into a sale transaction in the name of private respondents to the present petitioner disclosing the name of M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. as confirming party. This goes to show that petitioner and M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. are having gloves in hands and they may be connected with each other and they have created some documents in their favour to make a show that respondents have committed any offence. 9. In any case, there is a civil dispute between the parties for which respondents have already filed a civil suit and therefore, rights and entitlement of suit land would be decided by the civil court, wherein the civil court; while certainly considering the nature of land that whether it is agricultural or non-agricultural and whether amount, if any, paid by the present petitioner for getting the land converted from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose; will decide that whether petitioner is entitled to adjust such amount in sale transaction or not. 10. But in absence of mens rea and specific evidence regarding the commission of offence as alleged, it cannot be said that respondents have committed any offence so as to prosecute them as per the complaint filed by the petitioner company. At the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that original sale transaction by private respondents is in favour of one M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, if at all, there is any cheating by the private respondents then it is with said M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and not with the present petitioners. At the cost of repetition, it is to be recollected here that original sale transaction by private respondents is in favour of one M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, if at all, there is any cheating by the private respondents then it is with said M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and not with the present petitioners. Therefore, though criminal proceeding can be initiated by anyone, it becomes clear and certain that so far as private disputes are concerned, criminal complaint can be initiated by the aggrieved person only and not by any other party. 11. It is also an indisputable fact that petitioner herein has not joined M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. or its Director as accused though land in question is purchased by them from such company though his name is disclosed as a witness in the complaint. 12. Based upon the above facts, the petitioner has lodged a complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate First class at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad on 18.11.2014, after narrating the entire history of transaction between the parties, that private respondents have played a fraud on the company and the company became victim on account of misrepresentation and fraud. It is also contended that though accused nos. 6 to 13 before the trial court were not even party to the transaction at the relevant time, baseless, false and fraudulent allegation in order to extort money was made and in order to harass and to fraudulently take disadvantage of the situation . The perusal of the complaint also makes it clear that it is more a civil dispute than a commission of offence in any manner whatsoever. 13. However, when such complaint was presented before the trial court, the trial court has, after recording the statements of the petitioner’s representative, forwarded the complaint to Vatva Police Station for inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Before examining the further developments in the complaint, it would be necessary to recollect here that though the complaint was presented on 18.11.2014, and though statement for verification of the statement was started on the same day, after recording few lines the complainant has sought time contending that he has to attend some other urgent work and therefore, statement was further recorded on 28.11.2014. This goes to show that probably, the complainant was not much conversant with the facts of the complaint and not comfortable making statement on oath before the court. Even if we let go some technicality, the fact remains that after investigation has been directed by the court, the Police Inspector of Vatva Police Station has submitted his report of investigation on 14.03.2015 contending that the dispute between the parties are of civil nature and prima facie, there is no material to confirm the commission of offence and therefore, forwarded his report to the trial court for doing the needful. 14. The perusal of this report makes it clear that the possession of the land was handed over by the respondents to M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. on the date of agreement to sale i.e. on 22.06.1990 and registered sale-deed was executed by the respondents on 03.05.1991 again in favour of M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. It is also confirmed by the Investigating Officer that process house of the company was functional on the land in question. However, the respondents have filed the suit contending that they have never received this sale price as per the sale-deed, whereas it is the say of the petitioner-complainant that respondents have filed false affidavit to grab money from the company and thereby they have committed cheating and breach of trust. However, the Investigating Officer during the investigation has seen that M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. has failed to initiate the activity to get the NA permission and therefore, according to private respondents agreement to sale has become void automatically and therefore, their names are continued in the revenue record as an owner and possession holder. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has came across the fact that private respondents have never executed the sale-deed in favour of M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, when they have issued a public notice for title clearance certificate on 14.05.2013, present petitioner, who was in possession of the suit land, as per his statement, has lodged objection against such public notice. 15. 15. At this juncture, it is to be recollected that the sale-deed in favour of the present petitioner-complainant is not executed by the private respondents, but it is executed by one Motilal Purohit as their power of attorney holder and therefore, on the contrary, it is contended by the private respondents, before the Investigating Officer that, in fact, company has committed fraud to grab their property and therefore, private respondents have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 460 of 2013. 16. However, surprisingly, present petitioners have also filed a Special Civil Suit No. 785 of 2014, contending that they have purchased the land in the year 1991. Therefore, the Investigating Officer has observed in his report that when suit land was alleged to be sold by private respondents in favour of M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., then there is no question of executing the sale-deed in the name of private respondents in favour of the present petitioner by disclosing name of such Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. as only confirming party in the year 1996, and therefore, in the opinion of the Investigating Officer, it seems that the company has committed such mischief to grab the land, since it is the consistent stand of the private respondents that they have never received consideration for this sale and that they have never signed the sale-deed. 17. Therefore, by and large, there is a civil dispute between the parties regarding their rights, but meanwhile, the present petitioner has preferred this complaint so as to pressurize the private respondents in civil dispute. 18. When such report was filed before the trial court, by an impugned order dated 29.10.2015, the 7th Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class of Ahmedabad (Rural) Ahmedabad has dismissed the complaint on several grounds viz. the nature of dispute is of civil nature, there is no nexus between the complainant and the accused persons as the complainant has purchased the property from M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., accused persons have never promised anything or misrepresented any facts to the complainant, if at all, there was any misrepresentation, it was rectified when nature of property was changed from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and complainant has not raised any allegations against the seller of the property to him i.e. M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 19. In view of above facts and circumstances, I fully endorse the view taken by the trial court in impugned order dated 29.10.2015 dismissing the complaint for the reasons narrated in the impugned order. If at all, there is any dispute regarding the amount spent by the complainant, then at the most, the complainant may claim some such amount from the private respondents, but otherwise, considering the rival claim in civil suit and the fact that private respondents have not promised anything to the present complainant and when first transaction is in favour of M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., there is no reason for second transaction to disclose M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. as confirming party only, which goes to show that companies are trying to create some issue either to get some disadvantage or for some other ulterior motive. It is also an indisputable fact that on day one i.e. on the date of agreement to sale i.e. on 22.06.1990, the private respondents have categorically disclosed the correct fact, which is known to M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and therefore, if M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. gets the sale-deed executed in its favour, disclosing some different facts, then it is to be believed that M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. was solely aware about the situation but they are taking a different stand for some unknown reasons. 20. Though facts are quite clear and obvious, learned advocate Mr. Aditya A. Gupta, for the petitioner, is relying upon several citations and therefore, even at the cost of burdening this order, those citations are needed to be verified, which are as under:- (i) Vishwa Mitter of M/s Vijay Bharat Cigarette Stores, Dalhousie Road, Pathankot Vs. O.P. Poddar and Others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 701 , wherein, while dealing with the provisions of Section 4(2) read with Section 190, 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Magistrate cannot refuse to take cognizance of the offence and to issue process on the sole ground of incompetency of the dealer to file the complaint. Therefore, the basic fact is quite different, in as much as the Supreme Court was dealing with the offences under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and not with the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the basic fact is quite different, in as much as the Supreme Court was dealing with the offences under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and not with the offences under the Indian Penal Code. Though there is allegation of commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, in addition to offences under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, only because Supreme Court has reconfirmed the settled legal position that anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance, no court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complainant. Therefore, two things are material, (i) the facts disclosed by the complainant must constitute the commission of offence and (ii) declination to take cognizance should not be on sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file complaint. In the present case, there is no question regarding the competency of the complainant to file the complaint. So second part regarding declination to take cognizance is not applicable in the present case and therefore, practically, the court can take cognizance of the complaint only if the facts disclosed in the complaint is constituting an offence. In the same para with reference to the complaint under Indian Penal Code, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in categorical words, stated that anyone can set the criminal law in motion but the various provisions in Chapter XIV prescribes the qualification of the complainant which would enable them to file a complaint in respect of specified offences and no court can take cognizance of such offences unless the complainant satisfies the eligibility criterion. Therefore, it cannot be said that all complaints are to be registered in and investigated irrespective of specified facts to disclose the commission of specific offences, because the ratio of such judgment is confirmed by large bench in the case of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra to the effect that if a special enactment provides for specific procedure then such particular provision is to be followed. But in the present case there is no special provision involved. (ii) Subramaniam Swami Vs. State of Maharashtra to the effect that if a special enactment provides for specific procedure then such particular provision is to be followed. But in the present case there is no special provision involved. (ii) Subramaniam Swami Vs. Manmohan Singh and Another reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of sanction to prosecute a public servant for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, held that there is no restriction on a private citizen filing a private complaint against a public servant and court is not barred from taking cognizance of offence by relying on incriminating material collected by private citizens. Therefore, the basic issue before the court was regarding locus standi of a private citizen, which was held to be not excluded to file complaint against public servant. However, the basic ingredient to initiate any compliant is presence of incriminating material i.e. prima facie evidence to prove that some offences have been committed. Whereas, the core issue before the court was regarding application seeking sanction to prosecute a public servant by a private person. Therefore, this judgment would not help the present petitioner in absence of incriminating material because there is no issue either regarding sanction or regarding locus standi of the complainant. (iii) Shriram Krishnappa Asegaonkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in 1986 SCC Online Bombay 191 : 1986 Mah LJ 1004 : (1987) 1 Bom CR 59, wherein, the Hon’ble Single Judge of Bombay High Court was dealing with the provisions of Sections 190(1)(a), 204 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with sections 420, 468, 477A and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and has observed and held that the complaint in respect of offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code can be filed by any person to set the criminal law in motion and it is not necessary that such complaint should be filed by only person deceived. However, immediately after such observation, the Hon’ble Singe Judge has to observe that all that is necessary at the time of issuing process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the satisfaction of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case. However, immediately after such observation, the Hon’ble Singe Judge has to observe that all that is necessary at the time of issuing process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is the satisfaction of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case. Therefore, what is material is satisfaction of the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the case. Therefore, practically, such judgments are based upon factual details and does not lay down any legal issue differently within settled legal position of criminal jurisprudence. Practically, each case is to be looked into with facts available on record to verify that whether there is satisfaction to take cognizance supported by sufficient grounds for proceeding with the case. Therefore, in absence of sufficient grounds and satisfaction thereupon, there cannot be a trust only because a complaint is filed. (iv) Tapas Kumar Khan Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in 2007 SCC OnLine Calcutta 472 : (2008) 2 CHN 335 , wherein, the Hon’ble Single Judge has considered the issue of locus standi of the complaint. However, the fact remains that in the present case, though question is raised that there is no nexus between the petitioner – complainant and the private respondents, the denial to issue process is not based upon locus standi of the complaint, but based upon facts that there is no evidence else prima facie evidence to show that private respondents have cheated either the petitioner – complainant or even M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. because in first document being agreement to sale dated 22.06.1990, there is clear disclosure about position of land being agricultural. Therefore, what is considered for dismissing the complaint is not the issue of locus standi alone, but absence of sufficient grounds and satisfaction to proceed further by issuing process and then to drag the complaint so also the private respondents when there is no iota of evidence to confirm the commission of offence as alleged. (v) Deepak Garg Vs. Therefore, what is considered for dismissing the complaint is not the issue of locus standi alone, but absence of sufficient grounds and satisfaction to proceed further by issuing process and then to drag the complaint so also the private respondents when there is no iota of evidence to confirm the commission of offence as alleged. (v) Deepak Garg Vs. State reported in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3332, wherein the Hon’ble Single Judge of Delhi High Court has held that though there was no disclosure of all relevant facts in the complaint considering the serious allegations in the complaint, it was held that complaint cannot be dismissed on the ground that complainant has not come to the court with clean hands though such person is not entitled to any relief. It cannot be ignored that irrespective of what is discussed in such cited case, the basic principle of FIR or first complaint is to disclose the commission of offence and not to prove the same and therefore, non-disclosure of the same facts in complaint may not be treated as mischief or not coming before the court with clean hands and therefore, when court is of the opinion that allegations in the complaint are of serious nature, the court deemed it fit not to dismiss the complaint for want of non-disclosure of certain things when previous complaint made at Chandigarh was not disclosed. However, the fact remains that in the present case complaint is not dismissed on such grounds but it is dismissed only after inquiry under Section 202 by local police. Therefore, this judgment would not help the petitioner to succeed in the petition on such grounds. 21. Whereas, respondents are relying upon the following citations: (i) Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Another reported in (2005) 3 SCC 670 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with Sections 190(1)(b), 204 and 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 468 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code, and while considering the issue regarding the delay and laches in filing the complaint, it is held that if dispute is of civil nature, absence of ingredients of alleged offence of cheating would result into non-maintainability of complaint and it was liable to dismiss, more particularly, when police had reported that there is no prima facie evidence of commission of offence of cheating. Thereby, though order of taking cognizance by the court of Magistrate was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court, the Supreme Court has set aside both the orders and dismissed the complaint. (ii) Vesa Holding P. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. reported in AIR 2015 SC (Supp) 1085, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the complaint under Sections 417, 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, observed and held 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 the 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. 22. Therefore, the law is now well settled, whereby any absence of mens rea and proper prima facie evidence, more particularly, when dispute is of civil nature and when there is civil remedy available for shortfall, if any, there is no reason to proceed further in criminal proceedings. More so, when trial court has after appreciating the available material before it came to same conclusion and therefore, in such revisional jurisdiction, which is otherwise limited to scrutinize only irregularities or illegalities, there is limited scope of interfering with impugned order that the petitioner so desires to prosecute the private respondents though there is no sufficient evidence to prove the commission of any offence as alleged in the FIR. 23. It is quite clear that the complaint is under Sections 406, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, if we scrutinize the basic requirements of such commission of offence under such sections, it becomes clear that there is no prima facie evidence in complaint regarding criminal breach of trust, if any, committed by the private respondents because criminal breach of trust means dishonestly using or dispensing of property in violation of any direction of law prescribed by the mode in which such entrustment of property is to be carried out. It is clear and obvious that there is no entrustment of any property at all in favour of the private respondents and therefore, there cannot be any breach of trust. On the contrary, they are original owners, who might have entrusted the possession of property to M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. for utilizing it in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no evidence to confirm the commission of offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, there is no question deceiving by respondents for fraudulently or dishonestly or by inducing to deliver any property to the private respondents. Thus, when private respondents have never deceived either the complainant or M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and land is on the contrary if sold with possession to the first purchaser namely M/s Anita Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., there is no question of commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Whereas, Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code is dealing with the forgery of valuable security, and it is quite clear and obvious on record that there is neither allegation nor evidence regarding forging any documents in any manner and therefore, there is no reason to proceed further under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code also. 24. In view of above facts and circumstances, when there is no evidence regarding the commission of offence in any manner whatsoever under either of the sections viz. 406, 420 or 467 of the Indian Penal Code, I do not see any irregularities or illegality in the impugned order so as to proceed further by initiating criminal proceedings against the private respondents, more particularly, when civil litigation is pending for the same dispute. 25. In view of above facts and circumstances, the criminal revision being meritless stands dismissed.