ORDER : Respondent herein has filed a private complaint against petitioner-accused under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi alleging thereunder that accused is a resident of New Delhi and was owning agricultural lands bearing Sy.Nos.123, 125, 129, 131, 150, 151, 155 and 157/2 of Gangenahalli village, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in all measuring 37 acres having purchased the same from the erstwhile owner Sri Lalchand Memorial Charitable Trust under a registered sale deed dated 07.10.1972. It was further alleged that accused who was an Officer of Indian Administrative Services was residing at places far away from Bengaluru and he was unable to manage the properties and as such, he had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant on 05.09.2007. It is further alleged that since accused was unable to look after said properties, he agreed to sell the same to complainant for a total consideration of Rs.58,80,000/and an agreement of sale came to be executed by accused in respect of entire extent of 37 acres on 11.07.2007 and pursuant to same revenue entries were changed to name of the complainant in so far as Sy.Nos.129 & 131 totally measuring 9 acre 32 guntas. It is also alleged by the complainant that accused had executed a registered sale deed dated 10.09.2007 in favour of complainant in respect of 9.32 acres and insofar as remaining extent measuring 27 acres 5 guntas, title deeds could not be executed in favour of complainant on account of there being discrepancy in the entries relating to the revenue records and as such, accused had executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant individually in respect of remaining survey numbers and said power of attorney came to be registered before Sub Registrar, Chandigarh on 05.09.2007. Complainant has further alleged that supplemental agreement also came to be executed and affidavit confirming said transaction was also executed by the accused confirming the agreements executed earlier and also supplemental agreement by receiving full sale consideration and also executing seven (7) Power of Attorneys in favour of complainant which were duly registered in Sub-Registrar’s office. 2. Complainant has further alleged that supplemental agreement also came to be executed and affidavit confirming said transaction was also executed by the accused confirming the agreements executed earlier and also supplemental agreement by receiving full sale consideration and also executing seven (7) Power of Attorneys in favour of complainant which were duly registered in Sub-Registrar’s office. 2. Complainant has further alleged that when there was a dispute relating to Sy.Nos.123 & 125 on account of claim made by one Sri Channegowda who claimed to have filed Form No. 7A and as such, complainant was forced to file an appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and on contest, order of Land Tribunal dated 14.05.2003 came to be set aside in Revenue Appeal No.1085/2007. It was also alleged that Sri Manjunath s/o Sri Channegowda had obtained an order from revenue authorities in respect of Sy.No.123 measuring 3 acres 5 guntas by getting revenue records mutated to his name and challenging the same, appeal has been filed before Assistant Commissioner and said order came to be set aside. Complainant has also alleged that suits filed by accused in O.S.No.14/2009 and O.S.No.264/2010 were compromised through complainant as his Power of Attorney holder and in fact Power of Attorney had to give up his right to an extent of 1.20 acres in Sy.No.123 by virtue of compromise decree passed by Civil Court in said suits. He has also alleged that there were civil litigations pending relating to different Sy.Nos. which complainant had got settled on account of his intervention. 3. It is the prime contention of the complainant before the jurisdictional Magistrate that when this was the state of affairs accused was watching all these deliberations which have unfolded and in spite of there being an agreement being executed in favour of the complainant, he had sold 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.151 to one Sri Harpreeth Singh Dhesi, who was also well aware of the agreements executed in favour of complainant and also General Power of Attorneys executed in favour of complainant’s sons and said Harpreeth Singh Deshi is also a witness to the General Power of Attorneys executed by accused in favour of complainant and without cancelling the same, portion of the property had been sold clandestinely with intention to deceive the complainant. He has further alleged that out of eight (8) Sy.Nos which accused had agreed to sell had executed sale deeds in favour of two Sy.Nos. in favour of complainant and in respect of remaining Sy.Nos. sale deeds had not been executed on account of certain proceedings pending before jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner. He has further alleged that accused having received full and final sale consideration in respect of entire land which was agreed to be sold and having executed registered General Power of Attorneys in respect of each Sy.No. individually including supplemental agreement and its confirmation thereof, had executed sale deeds in favour of third parties who were also aware of the right possessed by the complainant with an intention to defraud the valuable right of the complainant and with a malafide and criminal intention which act of the accused is punishable under Sections 405, 415, 417, 418, 420 and 423 r/w Section 34 IPC. On these grounds, he sought for action being taken against petitioner – accused. 4. Learned Magistrate by order dated 16.11.2016 recorded the sworn statement of the complainant has ordered the Registry to register the said complaint as PCR and issued summons to the accused – petitioner. As such, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of said proceedings. 5. Heard Sri A.H.Bhagawan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner and Sri K G Sadashivaiah, learned Advocate appearing for respondent. Perused the records. 6. It is the contention of Sri A.H.Bhagawan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner that allegations made in the complaint will not disclose the commission of offences as alleged and dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and documents relied on by the complainant before the learned Magistrate in general and agreement of sale dated 11.07.2007 in particular, primafacie is fabricated and as such, proceedings initiated by setting criminal law into motion be quashed. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the very agreement of sale which has been relied upon by complainant namely, agreement of sale dated 11.07.2007 to contend that it would primafacie indicate it is a fabricated document, since as on the said date, accused was discharging his duties as a Member of Central Administrative Tribunal at Chandigarh and document in question would also disclose that same had been executed at Bengaluru and this fact itself was sufficient to disbelieve the claim of complainant and as such, learned Magistrate erred in issuing summons to the petitioner – accused. He would also submit that dispute is purely of civil nature and parties are litigating before Civil Court namely, complainant has already instituted a suit in O.S.No.89/2016 for setting aside the sale deed dated 05.12.2015 executed by accused in favour of Sri Harpreeth Singh Dhesi (second defendant) as null and void and also for a direction to the defendants therein to execute sale deed in his favour and likewise suits 90/2016, 91/2016 and 92/2016 and O.S.No.119/2016 for the relief of specific performance had been filed and as such, continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioner before the jurisdictional Court in PCR No.30/2016 would be an abuse of process of law. Hence, he seeks for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.503/2016 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) 2017 CRL.L.J. 744 PREM KUMAR vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER (ii) 2005 AIR SCW 989 SURESH vs MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA AND ANOTHER (iii) (2009)3 SCC 78 V.Y.JOSE AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 7. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) 2017 CRL.L.J. 744 PREM KUMAR vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER (ii) 2005 AIR SCW 989 SURESH vs MAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA AND ANOTHER (iii) (2009)3 SCC 78 V.Y.JOSE AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 7. Per contra, Sri K.G.Sadashivaiah, learned Advocate appearing for respondent would defend the initiation of proceedings against petitioner contending interalia that petitioner – accused being aware of the fact that he is a permanent resident of Delhi/Chandigarh had not only permitted the complainant – respondent to manage the agricultural properties in question and being aware of the fact that he is unable to take care of said property had agreed to sell the same in favour of the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.58.80 lakhs and on receiving entire sale consideration and confirming said execution of agreement of sale, he had also executed General Power of Attorneys individually in respect of each properties (each Sy.No.) and subsequently on receiving the balance sale consideration, had also executed supplemental agreements confirming execution of earlier agreement of sale as well as General Power of Attorneys and only on account of various disputes pending before different forums, registration of sale deeds could not take place and it was the complainant who was able to resolve all such pending disputes successfully either getting them resolved by entering into compromise or getting them adjudicated to its logical end successfully and accused on the know how of major disputes relating to the property in question had been resolved, had clandestinely sold the properties to two persons under five different sale deeds knowing fully well about agreements, General Power of Attorney’s and deeds of confirmation having already been executed in favour of complainant. He would also contend that one of the property which came to be purchased by Sri Harpreet Singh Dhesi is a witness to the agreement of sale as well as power of attorney as also the supplementary agreement dated 05.09.2007 executed by accused in favour of complainant and the fact that power of attorneys were got duly registered by accused himself and as such he cannot be heard to contend that there was no execution of agreement of sale or the purchaser Harpreet Singh Dhesi cannot plead ignorance of there being no existence of agreement of sale in favour of complainant. Hence, he contends that from the initial stage itself accused had the intention to deceive the complainant and in this process he had dishonestly sold the properties which were subject matter of agreement of sale in his favour. Hence, by relying upon the following judgments, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. (i) (1999)3 SCC 259 RAJESH BAJAJ vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS (ii) (2000) AIR (SCW) 682 M/S.MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA P. LTD vs M/S.BIOLOGICAL E. LTD & OTHERS (iii) (1993) AIR (SCW) 2427 RADHEY SHYAM KHEMKA AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF BIHAR 8. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of the case papers as well as the authorities relied upon by respective learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it requires to be observed at this stage itself that while examining a plea for quashing of proceedings initiated on the basis of private complaint lodged under Section 200 Cr.P.C. what is required to be examined is to find out or ascertained from the complaint so lodged to find out from the allegations made in the complaint as to whether complainant has laid the foundation of commission of offence or not. There may be instances where a complaint is filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. alleging offences of cheating having been committed by the accused and a thin line may exist between civil dispute and criminal dispute and there cannot be any straight jacket formula or abstract principle of law to state or categorize instances about circumstances where criminal law can be set into motion divorced from civil matter or vice versa. There may be instances where they may go hand in hand and it all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. There may be instances where they may go hand in hand and it all depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, an onerous duty is cast on the Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction to scrutinize and examine the allegations made in the complaint to find out as to whether allegation made in the complaint would exclusively fall in the domain of a civil dispute or it could also fall within the domain of criminal liability and if the answer is in the affirmative, namely it may fall under both categories, then accused cannot be heard to contend that on account of there being an element of civil dispute, party alleging criminal liability is to be directed to proceed against accused only by continuing civil proceedings and not having recourse to action by initiating criminal prosecution. At this juncture, it would be of benefit to note the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of V.Y.JOSE AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)3 SCC 78 whereunder it came to be held that only because civil law can be taken to recourse to would not necessarily mean that criminal proceedings would be barred. There exists distinction between pure contractual dispute of civil nature and an offence of cheating, then, both proceedings can be proceeded with. It is further held that breach of contract per se would not come in the way of initiation of criminal proceedings, yet in the absence of averments made in the complaint/petition wherefrom the ingredients of an offence can be found out, Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. inasmuch as, salutary purpose of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to ensure that a person would not undergo harassment of litigation for number of years although no case has been made out against him. It has been held when the matter which is essentially involving dispute of civil nature, same should not be allowed to be the subject matter of criminal offence. It has been held: “31. Before parting, however, we may notice a decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta [ (2004) 1 SCC 691 ] whereupon strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Jain. This Court, therein upon referring to Bhajan Lal (supra) opined as under: (Kishore Gupta case, SCC P.700-01, para 11) "11. It has been held: “31. Before parting, however, we may notice a decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta [ (2004) 1 SCC 691 ] whereupon strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Jain. This Court, therein upon referring to Bhajan Lal (supra) opined as under: (Kishore Gupta case, SCC P.700-01, para 11) "11. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State 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 magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hardandfast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage. (See Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary and Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar). It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises, arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In proceedings instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in the court which decide the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by itself be the basis for quashing the proceedings." (Emphasis supplied) No exception can be taken to the aforementioned principles of law, as therein also it has categorically been held that exercise of inherent power under Section 482 is permissible where allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence for which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate. It is evidently a case of that nature.” 9. It is evidently a case of that nature.” 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PREM KUMAR vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER reported in 2017 CRL.L.J. 744 was examining as to whether a complaint filed against vendor of a property alleging that after receiving consideration from the complainant had refused to complete the sale transaction of land in question would be entitled to proceed against accused by initiating criminal proceedings and has answered in the negative, in the facts obtained thereunder particularly after noticing that complainant therein having not filed a suit for specific performance for a period more than 10 years and as such, it came to be held that initiation of criminal proceedings by the complainant is an abuse of Court process and as such to exercise civil rights which had become extinct by virtue of lapse of time, criminal proceedings cannot be set into motion. Hence, criminal proceedings initiated came to be set aside by opining: “5. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, this appeal has been preferred. On 26th April, 2013, while issuing notice, this Court stayed further proceedings. No one appears for the complainant in spite of service of notice. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken as correct, complaint has been filed in the year, 2012 while the agreement to sell in question was executed in favour of the complainant on 16th March, 1989. The second sale took place in the year 1999. no suit for specific performance was filed for a period of more than 10 years. In these circumstances, the complaint was an abuse of court’s process to enforce civil rights which had become illegally unenforceable. 6. From the above undisputed facts, it is apparent that the impugned complaint is clear abuse of court’s process. It is not the case of the complainant that any proceedings were taken for the enforcement of the agreement to sell for a period of more than 10 years. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant are clear abuse of the process of court.” 10. It is not the case of the complainant that any proceedings were taken for the enforcement of the agreement to sell for a period of more than 10 years. In these circumstances, the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant are clear abuse of the process of court.” 10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GORIGE PENTAIAH vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6901 has held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the Court sparingly and in a situation to prevent abuse of process of law. However, it has also been held thereunder that there cannot be any hard and fast rule laid down in that regard and the types of cases in which inherent power can be used to quash the proceedings. 11. In its authoritative pronouncement, Hon’ble Apex Court in INDER MOHAN GOSWARMI AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS reported in (2008)1 SCC (CRl.) 259 while reiterating the power available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to the High Court for quashing the proceedings has held that jurisdiction though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and illustratively, contours have been defined as (1) to give effect to the order under the code; (2) to prevent abuse of the process of Court; (3) to otherwise secure ends of justice, that is, to do real and substantial justice. It has been further held that Court exercising said power must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ultimate motive to pressurize the accused. However, such power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution, more so, when evidence has not been collected and produced before Court and issues involved are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material available on record. 12. Sri A.H.Bhagawan, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner by relying upon said judgment, has contended that principles laid down in INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI’s case is aptly applicable to the facts on hand and he would contend that this is a classic case where respondent is attempting to settle his scores with the petitioner by initiating proceedings by filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and without there being any material on record, trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner. He would draw the attention to paragraphs 21 & 22 of INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI’s case referred to supra to contend that facts alleged by the complainant can be ascertained only on the basis of evidence and documents that may be tendered by the parties before Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and as such criminal proceedings should not be allowed to be continued. 13. At this juncture, it would be apt and appropriate to notice that in INDER MOHAN GOSWAMI’s case, a charitable society had executed power of attorney and sale agreement in respect of land in favour of respondent No.3 and on his failure to pay the balance sale consideration, after issuing notice, vendor had cancelled the agreement forfeiting the earnest money and had subsequently sold part of land in question therein to one “S” in order to protect interest of the society. At that juncture, third respondent therein filed a criminal case against appellants under Section 420 & 467 IPC and in that background, Apex Court held that matter was purely of civil nature and even if the entire averments made in the complaint is taken to be truth and correct, no offence under Sections 420 & 467 IPC is made out against appellants therein. As such, judgment of High Court passed declining to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against appellants therein by third respondent came to be set aside and proceedings came to be quashed. 14. In the case of M/S.MEDCHL CHEMICALS AND PHARMA P. LTD. vs M/S.BIOLOGICAL E. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in 2000 AIR SCW 682 Hon’ble Apex Court was examining as to the correctness and legality of quashing of the proceedings initiated by respondent therein against appellant since respondent had filed a complaint against appellant for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 418, 415 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC which was an outcome of transaction between appellant and respondent therein and it related to bulk sale of product known as ‘Ethambutol Hydrochloride’ which resulted in a dispute arising between contracting parties. In the process of examining, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that quashing is an exception rather than a rule and quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare case and not to scuttle the prosecution. In the process of examining, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that quashing is an exception rather than a rule and quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare case and not to scuttle the prosecution. Averments or allegations made in the complaint have been succinctly discussed in detail by the Apex Court and on noticing its earlier judgment in the case of RAM JAS. vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in AIR 1974 SC 1811 whereunder Apex Court had observed as under: “The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii) (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) In cases covered by (ii)(b), the actor omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.” It came to be held that in order to attract provisions of Sections 418 & 420, the guilt intent, at the time of making the promise is an essential requirement and an essential ingredient thereto and subsequent failure to fulfil the promise by itself would not attract the provisions of Section 418 or 420. Mensrea is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of cheating under Section 420 Cr.P.C. It has been further held that where allegations made in the complaint or statement of witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against accused or where allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd or inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion and that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against accused or where discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate in issuing process is capricious, arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible or where complaint suffers from fundamental defects are the contingencies where this Court can exercise power vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. In the light of above settled principles of law, facts on hand are requires to be examined. As already noticed herein above, complainant by relying upon documents produced along with the complaint has contended that accused being well aware of the execution of agreement of sale dated 11.07.2007 and the subsequent individual General Power of Attorneys executed in respect of each survey numbers and also supplemental agreement in favour of complainant had sold 5 items of the property in favour of different persons and one of the purchaser being Sri. Harpreet Singh Dhesi who was also a witness to all the documents executed by accused in favour of complainant and as such accused had intention from the beginning to cheat the complainant and this plea would reveal the fraudulent act allegedly committed by the accused. It has been specifically pleaded and urged in the complaint to the following effect: “17. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant clearly reveals the fact that the fraudulent act committed by the accused in defeating and defrauding the valuable rights of the complainant with a malafide and criminal intention. The accused for having received the full sale consideration as far as back in the year 2007 itself by means of demand drafts to the tune of Rs.58,80,000/and allowed the complainant to enjoy the properties. So also vide the litigations against the encroachers, trespassers and other persons who are trying to manipulate the records of the lands in question. The accused for having received the full sale consideration as far as back in the year 2007 itself by means of demand drafts to the tune of Rs.58,80,000/and allowed the complainant to enjoy the properties. So also vide the litigations against the encroachers, trespassers and other persons who are trying to manipulate the records of the lands in question. The complainant after having fought the litigations against the said illegal persons and got the revenue entries in the name of accused. The accused instead of keeping quite and with dishonest intention in an illegal manner has executed the sale deeds by betraying the rights of the complainant and defeating the valuable rights of the complainant. The act of accused is totally is of criminal nature and hence, is liable to be punished as contemplated under the provisions of Section 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420 and 423 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.” 16. In the light of above said allegation made in the complaint, it has to be examined as to whether said allegations would make out any case against accused or it discloses the ingredients of an offence alleged against accused or allegations are absent and said allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable. Whether allegations made in the complaint is true or otherwise is to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led at trial and at the initial stage, without there being any other contra material available on record except self assertion of the accused that agreement of sale itself is fabricated and concocted, complete go by cannot be given to the registered power of attorney executed by accused in favour of complainant which is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Chandigarh. Hence, at this stage it cannot be held or no conclusion can be arrived that allegations made in the complaint are either vague or so absurd that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against accused. Merely because the transaction is of civil nature would not prevent the complainant to establish the guilt of the accused as alleged in the complaint. Whether or not allegations made in the complaint are true has to be decided on the basis of evidence which can tendered by the complainant at trial. Merely because the transaction is of civil nature would not prevent the complainant to establish the guilt of the accused as alleged in the complaint. Whether or not allegations made in the complaint are true has to be decided on the basis of evidence which can tendered by the complainant at trial. The voluminous documents produced by the complainant namely, 57 documents along with the complaint would clearly disclose that there existed transaction between the complainant and the accused and at no point of time during the interregnum period i.e., after the date of alleged agreement of sale or execution of the power of attorneys by the accused in favour of the complainant till filing of the complaint, there is a whisper on the part of accused denying receipt of huge consideration amounts from complainant. In fact, accused has undisputedly executed sale deed in favour of the complainant on 10.09.2007 in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.129 & 131 to an extent of 9.32 acres and has also got it duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 10.09.2007. Even these two bits of land according to complainant is also the subject matter of agreement of sale dated 11.07.2007. When that being the factual position, at this juncture, it cannot be held that in the absence of any evidence available on record, a conclusion can be arrived that continuation of the proceedings against complaint would be an abuse of process of law or no prudent person could arrive at a conclusion that there is no offence (primafacie) made out against accused for being proceeded with. 17. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.Y.JOSE AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)3 SCC 78 has held that only because civil law can be taken recourse to would not necessarily mean that criminal proceedings should be barred. However, there exists a distinction between pure contractual dispute of a civil nature and an offence of cheating. It has been further held that in the absence of averments made in the complaint wherefrom the ingredients of an offence can be found out, the Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, emphasis has been laid on the averments made in the complaint. If foundation has been laid in the complaint, that would suffice. If foundation has been laid in the complaint, that would suffice. It does not necessarily mean that complainant should state in so many words that the intention of the accused was dishonest or fraudulent. The complaint need not reflect the exact words used in a provision defining the offence. As such, even in the absence of the ingredients of offence having not been specified in the complaint would not give rise to quashing of the proceedings. 18. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PRATIBHA RANI vs SURAJ KUMAR reported in AIR 1985 SC 628 has held that both criminal law and civil remedy are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. It is further held that object of criminal liability is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the state which he is accused. However, this does not affect civil remedies for suing the wrong doer. 19. In the light of aforestated discussion, this Court is of the considered view that on a holistic reading of the complaint as already noticed herein above, it cannot be said that averments or allegations made in the complaint does not disclose ingredients of offences as alleged therein. However, this Court would hasten to add that no opinion is expressed on merits of the case namely, as to whether allegations made in the complaint are true or otherwise, since same has to be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence that may tendered by the parties. 20. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that facts obtained in the present case would not entail the petitioner – accused to seek for short circuiting the criminal law set into motion by the respondent-complainant. 21. It is needless to state that any observation made by this Court in the course of this order is for the limited purposes of examining the prayer for quashing the proceedings pending before trial Court and trial Court shall without being prejudiced by any of the observations made herein above shall proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits and in accordance with law. Trial Court shall also take into consideration the age of accused as well as distance he has to travel between his present permanent place of residence and place where trial is being conducted while considering the application for exemption that may be filed by the petitioner – accused sympathetically. This Court does not find any other good ground to entertain this petition. Hence, for the reasons aforestated, criminal petition is hereby dismissed.