JUDGMENT : 1. This Application has been filed by the applicants/accused nos. 10 and 11 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity “CrPC”) praying to quash and set aside the complaint, being M. Case No. 1/2012 registered at CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an agricultural land, bearing Survey No. 147, situated at village Koteshwar, District: Gandhinagar was originally belonged to the accused no.1 to 9. In the year 1988, the accused no.10 and 11(applicants herein) decided to purchase the said land. After paying consideration to the original farmers, they entered into an agreement to sell and obtained irrevocable power of attorney in their favour. Thereafter, in the year 1990, the applicants decided to sell the said property and further entered into agreement to sell with one Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel on 05.03.1990 and with a view to cheat Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel, the sale deed was not entered into by the applicants. Therefore, Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel filed Regular Civil Suit No. 326 of 1995 against the applicants and the original farmers. In the year 1995, the agent contacted the present respondent no.1-original complainant and showed him 10 survey numbers of the Koteshwar village, out of which, the complainant agreed to purchase Survey No. 147. Thus, the complainant met with the applicants through an agent on 03.09.1995. An agreement to sell was made in favour of the complainant by the original farmers and it was also agreed that disputes with Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel will be resolved by the present complainant directly and as the original owners were not entering into sale deed in favour of the complainant, complainant filed Special Civil Suit No. 13/1996 before the competent Court. That, pending the suit, the parties entered into a compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, the Court passed a decree according to the compromise. Thus, after receiving full consideration, the registered sale deed was made in favour of the complainant on 26.04.1996 by the original land owners. The complainant also resolved his disputes with Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel directly. Thus, after receiving full consideration, the registered sale deed was made in favour of the complainant on 26.04.1996 by the original land owners. The complainant also resolved his disputes with Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel directly. But, when the complainant tried to enter his name in the revenue records on the basis of the registered sale deed, same was objected by the original land owners by way of notice under Section 135(D) of the Land Revenue Code. Thus, with a view to cheat the complainant and to obtain undue advantage, the original land owners were trying to sell the said property belonging to the complainant to other persons. Thus, the complainant filed Regular Civil Suit No. 223 of 2006 and obtained stay in his favour. Though there is a stay in his favour, original land owners with the help of the applicants and with a view to dupe the legitimate rights of the complainant and with a view to obtain wrongful gain and to cheat the complainant, they made five sale deeds in favour of other co-accused. Therefore, the impugned complainant has been filed against the present applicants and other accused persons. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. KJ Panchal for the applicant no.2, learned advocate Mr. AS Bhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and learned APP Mr. KL Pandya appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2. 4. Learned advocate Mr. KJ Panchal for Mr. Amrish K. Pandya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant no.2 has submitted that the complainant has filed present complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 21/2011 on 26.12.2011 and after examining the complainant on oath under Section 200 CrPC and after taking cognizance under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, the learned Magistrate ought to have proceeded further under Chapter XV CrPC, but instead of that, has directed to investigate the said complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. That, the property is sold to the present complainant in the year 1996 by the present applicants and the original land owners by way of registered sale deed and since then, the applicants did not claim any right over the said property. That, the property is sold to the present complainant in the year 1996 by the present applicants and the original land owners by way of registered sale deed and since then, the applicants did not claim any right over the said property. The said property was sold to the complainant on 26.04.1996, but the same came to be registered only in the year 2004 by the competent authority for the reasons best known to the complainant and this fact has been suppressed by the complainant. The complainant has also misrepresented the fact that because of objections raised by the applicant, entry with regard to sale deed could not be mutated in his favour. But, actually when the complainant tried to enter his name in the revenue record on the basis of the sale deed, the original land owners filed objection against the said entry and the case was tried by the Mamlatdar as Dispute Case No. 78 of 2006 and after hearing the parties, Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that the complainant is not agriculturist, as he has obtained his status as farmer by way of will and against him, proceedings under Section 84(c) of the Tenancy Act was initiated. That, the complainant is not a farmer as per law, the said entry no. 684 was rejected by the Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar vide order dated 31.01.2007. That, complainant preferred an Appeal against the said order before the Prant Officer, being RTS/Appeal/SR-181/2007. The said appeal also came to be rejected vide order dated 24.02.2009, but such fact is also suppressed by the complainant in his complaint. That, in the complaint the complainant has mentioned about five sale deeds executed between 2007 to 2010, but in none of the sale deeds, present applicants have not signed in any of the documents. It is clear from the complaint itself that after 1996, the applicants have no nexus with the subsequent transactions occurred in the said property. That, merely the accused have not settled civil dispute with the complainant regarding the said property, the impugned complaint is filed. 5. Learned advocate for the applicants urged that after executing registered sale deed on 26.04.1996 in favour of the respondent no.2-complainant, wherein the petitioner have signed as a confirming party, all the disputes with regard to the said land came to an end from their side in the year 1996. 5. Learned advocate for the applicants urged that after executing registered sale deed on 26.04.1996 in favour of the respondent no.2-complainant, wherein the petitioner have signed as a confirming party, all the disputes with regard to the said land came to an end from their side in the year 1996. The applicants have not claimed any right, title or interest in the said property against the complainant, but with a view to harass the present applicants, he has falsely implicate him in the criminal complaint. That, applicant is not directly or indirectly involved in the land transactions after 1996, and therefore, anticipatory bail was granted by the Court to him. That, applicant is innocent. That, charge-sheet has been filed by the police, wherein no role is attributed to the petitioner; as alleged in the complaint, and therefore, it was requested to quash and set aside criminal complaint i.e., M. Case No. 01/2012 registered with CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 114 and 120B IPC. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicants has relied on the following authorities. 1. AIR 1964 SC-1541 (Jamuna Singh & ors., v. Bhadai Shah) 2. AIR 2015 (9) SC 609 (S.R. Sukumar v. Sunaad Raghuram) 3. AIR 1976 SC 1672 (Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & ors. v. V. Narayana Reddy & Ors.) 4. AIR 1977 SC 2401 (Tula Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh) 6. Per contra, Shri A.S. Bhatt, learned advocate for the respondent No.6 made submission in line with reply-affidavit to contend that sale deed of the land in dispute was executed in favour of the complainant on 26th April 1996 and sale consideration was paid by him. That, applicant no.1 has marked his signature as a witness in the registered sale deed and peaceful possession of the land was handed over to him. It is submitted that the complainant requested for mutation entry in register of record of rights-village form no. 6, but as the price of the land was escalating the present applicants started disputes illegally in respect of land sold to the complainant. That, behind the complainant, present applicants started dispute from original owners and objected Entry No. 684 in favour of the complainant and therefore, Mamlatdar rejected the same on 31st January 2007. 6, but as the price of the land was escalating the present applicants started disputes illegally in respect of land sold to the complainant. That, behind the complainant, present applicants started dispute from original owners and objected Entry No. 684 in favour of the complainant and therefore, Mamlatdar rejected the same on 31st January 2007. That, price of the land escalated and the name of the complaint was not yet entered in village form No. 7/12, because all owners were under the control of the present applicants, they again made attempt to sell the land for the second time. Regular Civil Suit No. 223/2006 was filed against all the land owners before Gandhinagar Court, wherein learned Judge was pleased to grant permanent injunction by an order dated 31.01.2007 in favour of the complainant, till final disposal of the suit. It is further submitted that the present applicant, with the help of original owners of the land, as they were ignorant had no education, by remaining behind during the pendency of the said stay granted by the Court, illegally and unauthorizedly, five sale deeds of the land were executed in favour of third party and conspiracy was committed by the applicants. That, there are 17 names in the FIR and still 23 (Twenty Three) witnesses are yet to be examined, as charge-sheet was filed by the Investigating Agency. It is further submitted that this Court may not exercise the powers in favour of the applicants by quashing and setting aside the complaint. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent no.1 to dismiss the petition. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. K.L. Pandya for the respondent no.2 supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate Mr. A.S. Bhatt appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and submitted that applicant no.1-Hargovanbhai Somabhai Patel has passed away. That, applicant no.2 is original accused no.10 in the complaint lodged by the respondent no.2. That, a power of attorney was executed by the original land owners in favour of the present applicants. That, one Banakhat of the land in dispute was executed in favour of the accused no.10. That, the land was sold to one Mr. Bholabhai Patel by agreement to sell. Thereafter, the said land was sold to the present complainant. That in the year 1996, a consent decree was passed by the Court. That, one Banakhat of the land in dispute was executed in favour of the accused no.10. That, the land was sold to one Mr. Bholabhai Patel by agreement to sell. Thereafter, the said land was sold to the present complainant. That in the year 1996, a consent decree was passed by the Court. That, name of the complainant was not entered into revenue record. Brother of the applicant was beneficiary from the land as the name of the applicant no.1 (deceased) was shown in the revenue record. That, in a Banakhat executed, present applicant was a witness. Thereafter, another sale deed was executed on 30th June 2004. That, this offence is continued from 1996 to 2004, sale deed was lying with the office of Sub Registrar. That, revenue dispute was pending before the revenue authorities. A prima facie case, is made out by the complainant against the present applicants, as alleged in the complaint. Hence, it was requested by learned Additional Public Prosecutor to dismiss the application. 8. Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties, written submission made by the respondent no.2, arguments advanced by learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. KL Pandya for the respondent no.2 and material produced on record, it appears that the respondent no.1 filed a private complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad, being Criminal Inquiry Case No. 21/2011 on 26.12.2011. The learned Judge, after examining the complaint, under Section 200 CrPC, took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC and thereafter, he did not deem it fit to proceed further under Chapter XV CrPC. The learned Judge was pleased to pass an order on 26.12.2011 directing the Additional Director General, CID Crime & Railways, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station, Police Bhawan, Gandhinagar to investigate the said complaint under section 156(3) CrPC. From the documents and averments made by the other side, it appears that land in dispute situated at village Koteshwar, District: Gandhinagar originally belongs to accused no.1 to 9 shown in the complaint. In 1988, the original accused nos. 10 and 11 (present applicants) decided to purchase the said land from the original farmers and agreement to sell was executed as well as irrevocable power of attorney in their favour. In 1988, the original accused nos. 10 and 11 (present applicants) decided to purchase the said land from the original farmers and agreement to sell was executed as well as irrevocable power of attorney in their favour. Thereafter, it appears from the record that in the year 1990, both the applicants decided to sale the said land and further entered into an agreement to sell in favour of one Mr. Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel on 5th March 1990. However, an agreement to sell was executed in favour of the petitioners, no sale deed was executed in their favour by the original owners. It appears that no registered sale deed was executed after agreement to sell dated 5th March 1990 by the original land owners in favour of said Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel, and therefore, he filed Regular Civil Suit No. 326 of 1995 against the original land owners and the present applicants. It appears that the complainant came into contact with the applicants and shown his willingness to purchase the said land. As per the averments made by the applicants, the complainant was informed about pendency of a civil suit filed by Bholabhai Valjibhai Patel. The complainant, however, was ready to purchase the said land, as he had good terms with said Bholabhai Patel. Ultimately, a Banakhat of the said land was executed in favour of the complainant on 30.09.1995 and the original land owners signed the said deed. On 30.09.1995, an indemnity bond was also executed. It appears from the document produced on record that several disputes arose between the complainant and original land owners. Special Civil suit No. 13/1996 was filed against the original land owners and present applicants. It appears that in the said suit, compromise was arrived at by and between the parties and the said suit was decreed, as per terms of the compromise and the suit was disposed of. Thereafter, on 26th April 1996, a sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant by the original land owners and the petitioners marked their signatures on the said document as confirming party. For the reasons best known to the parties, document was registered by the competent authority on 30th June 2004. It appears from the record that the complainant made mutation entry No. 684 in the register of record of rights village Form no. 6. For the reasons best known to the parties, document was registered by the competent authority on 30th June 2004. It appears from the record that the complainant made mutation entry No. 684 in the register of record of rights village Form no. 6. As per the say of the complainant, behind him, the present applicants started dispute with original farmers before the Mamlatdar for entry No. 684 and this entry was rejected on 31st January 2007. True as it that entry in favour of the complainant i.e., entry no. 684 was rejected by Mamlatdar by an order dated 31st January 2007, but there is no name of the petitioners mentioned raising any dispute in respect of above entry in favour of the complainant and on the basis of the alleged objection, it was rejected. May be it is also true that name of the complainant was not entered into in village form no. 7/12, it cannot be said that as the original land owners were under control of the present applicants, they made attempt to sale the land for second time. The complainant has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 223/2006 against all the land owners on 7th July 2006 before the court at Gandhinagar and requested to pass stay order restraining the original land owners from transferring the land. After hearing the parties, on 31st January 2007, it appears that interim injunction was granted by the learned Judge till final disposal of the suit filed by the complainant. It also appears from the record that an entry in that effect, the said was granted by the court was made in village from No. 6 register of record of rights vide entry no. 823 and it was certified. However, it appears that from February 2007 to February 2010, five different sale deeds were executed by original owners of the land in favour of third parties of the land in dispute. But, it appears that the present petitioners were neither necessary parties, nor signatories or witness in the said five sale deeds executed in favour of third parties. It can not be presumed that due to ignorance of the original land owners or they being illiterate, the present petitioners took advantage of their ignorance, by remaining behind them, i.e., original owners of the land having knowledge of pendency of the suit and interim stay granted by the Court. It can not be presumed that due to ignorance of the original land owners or they being illiterate, the present petitioners took advantage of their ignorance, by remaining behind them, i.e., original owners of the land having knowledge of pendency of the suit and interim stay granted by the Court. True that, Investigating agency has filed charge-sheet against the applicants after collecting evidence and the matter is pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ahmedabad being No. 573 of 2012. Admittedly, applicant no.1 has passed away and no cause survives to proceed against him, from the complainant or this applicant is concerned. Indisputedly, after executing a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant on 26th April 1996, on which the applicant has signed as a confirming party, in none of the remaining documents or transactions in respect of the land, he is a party, either- seller or purchaser. Civil Suit filed by the complainant against the original land owner is pending before the Court at Gandhinagar and interim injunction is granted. Present petitioner was never objector making any dispute in respect of the entries in revenue record in favour of the complainant. It is stated that Mamlatdar has observed in his order that complainant is not the agriculturist as has obtained his status of being a farmer is by way of will and against him proceedings under Section 84(c) of the Tenancy Act were initiate. The said entry no. 684 was rejected by Mamlatdar on 31st January 2007. It further appears that the said order was challenged by the complainant by preferring an appeal before the Prant Officer being RTS/Appeal/SR-181/2007. The said appeal was dismissed by an order dated 24th February 2009. Prima facie, it appears that present applicants have not created any forged document nor obtained any unlawful gain, but it is a dispute of civil nature and different civil suits are filed by the complainant and original farmers and they are pending before the competent Civil Courts. With a view to harass the present applicants, civil dispute is given colour of criminal nature by filing impugned complaint by the respondent no.1. It also appears that last sale deed was executed on 18th February 2010 and the impugned complaint was lodged on 26th December 2011. No explanation comes on record from the respondent no.1 in filing the impugned complaint, after a long delay. 9. It also appears that last sale deed was executed on 18th February 2010 and the impugned complaint was lodged on 26th December 2011. No explanation comes on record from the respondent no.1 in filing the impugned complaint, after a long delay. 9. In case of Tula Ram & Ors. v. Kishore Singh, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2401 , it is held that a Magistrate can order investigation under Section 156(3) only at the pre-cognizance stage, that is to say, before taking cognizance under Sections 190, 200 and 204 and where a Magistrate decides to take cognizance under the provisions of Chapter 14. He is not entitled in law to order any investigation under Section 156(3) though in cases not falling within the proviso to Section 202, he can order an investigation by the police which would be in the nature of an enquiry as contemplated by Section 202 of the Code. 10. Here also, it appears that after examining the complainant under Section 200 CrPC, taking cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) CrPC, learned Magistrate, instead of proceedings under Chapter 15 CrPC, passed an order under Section 156(3) CrPC on 26th December 2011 appears to be erroneous. 11. In case of S.R. Sukumar v. Sunaad Raghuram, reported in AIR 2015 (9) SC 609, it was held that although there is no specific provision in CrPC to amend a complaint or a petition filed under CrPC, if amendment sought to be made relates to a simple infirmity, which is curable by means of a formal amendment and by allowing such amendment no prejudice would be caused to the other side, court may permit such amendment to be made. But, amendment cannot be allowed, if it does not relate to a curable infirmity or infirmity cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side. 12. In case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy & ors. V.V. Narayana Reddy & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 1672 , the Apex Court has interpreted that taking cognizance of an offence and meaning thereof in para 14 is as under: “14. The expression “taking cognizance of an offence” by a Magistrate within the contemplation of s. 190? This expression has not been defined in the Code. V.V. Narayana Reddy & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 1672 , the Apex Court has interpreted that taking cognizance of an offence and meaning thereof in para 14 is as under: “14. The expression “taking cognizance of an offence” by a Magistrate within the contemplation of s. 190? This expression has not been defined in the Code. But from the scheme of the Code, the content and marginal heading of s. 190 and the caption of Chapter XIV under which ss. 190 to 199 occur, it is clear that a case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. The was in which such cognizance can be taken are set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1). Whether the Magistrate has or has not taken cognizance of the offence will depend on the circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be instituted and the nature of the preliminary action, if any, taken by the Magistrate. Broadly speaking, when on receiving a complaint, the Magistrate applies his mind for the purposes of proceeding under s. 200 and the succeeding sections in Chapter XV of the Code of 1973, he is said to have taken cognizance of the offence within the meaning of s. 190(l)(a). If, instead of proceeding under Chapter XV, he has in the judicial exercise of his discretion, taken action of some other kind, such as issuing a search warrant for the purpose of investigation, or ordering investigation by the police under s. 156(3), he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. 13. In case of Jamuna Singh & ors., v. Bhadai Shah, reported in AIR 1964 SC-1541, it is held in para 8 as under: “8. When on a petition of complaint being filed before him a Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under the various provisions of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint. When however he applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under s. 156(3) or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation. he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. When however he applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under s. 156(3) or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation. he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. R.R. Chari v. State of U.P., [1951] S.C.R. 312 Ref.” 14. The allegation in the complaint, read as a whole, not expressly or impliedly showing an intentional depth on the part of the applicants right from the beginning from the transactions. Thus, prima facie, the allegations made by the respondent no.1 does not constitute offence under Section 420 or allied offence mentioned in the complaint. Undisputedly, dispute herein appears to be purely a civil in nature and the applicant is arraigned in the complaint with a malicious intention to convert into civil dispute into a criminal offence. This Court is of the view that continuing criminal proceedings with the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of the court. 15. Accordingly this Application is allowed. Complaint, being M. Case No. 1/2012 registered at CID Crime, Gandhinagar Zone Police Station for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code is ordered to be quashed and set aside, qua the applicant no.2 (i.e., accused no.10). It is made clear that none of the observations made by this court in the present order would in anyway influence the learned Magistrate in deciding Criminal Case which is pending qua other accused persons. Rule is made absolute. Interim relief granted earlier stands confirmed. No costs. Application allowed.