JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner Saiyyad Mohamd has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 543/2015 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur. 3. A case was set up in the impugned FIR that the accused executed an agreement to sell two plots No. 159 and 160 owned by him located at the Stadium Shop Center, Jodhpur to the complainant. He executed the registered sale deed of the Plot No. 160 and also handed over the possession of the plot No. 159 to the complainant. Despite having received the consideration amount, the accused did not get executed the registered sale-deed of the second plot (No. 159) in favour of the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner with these allegations in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur Metro which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In pursuance of the said direction, the impugned FIR No. 543/2015 has been registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Udaimandir for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC. 4. Learned counsel Shri. Firoz Khan representing the petitioner places reliance on the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 67 and urges that ex-facie, the very registration of the impugned FIR is nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law because the remedy, if any, available to the complainant for ventilating his grievances in relation to the disputed transaction was to file a suit for specific performance of contract. He thus urges that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed as the same does not ex-facie disclose the requisite ingredients of the offences alleged. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel representing the complainant though vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel but, they too were not in a position to dispute the fact that the highest case set out by the complainant against the petitioner in the impugned FIR is that he did not execute the registered sale deed of the disputed plot after receiving the consideration thereof. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has a valid title of the plot in question when he executed the sale-deed in favour of the complainant. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has a valid title of the plot in question when he executed the sale-deed in favour of the complainant. It is further admitted that possession of the plot was handed over to the complainant while executing the agreement. It is also not in dispute that the accused has executed registered sale deed of the plot No. 160 in favour of the complainant. 6. In view of these facts, I am of the firm opinion that the only remedy available to the complainant for ventilating his grievance as set out in the impugned FIR was to file a suit for specific performance and nothing else. The controversy at hand is squarely covered by the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Paramjeet Batra (supra) relied upon by learned counsel Shri. Firoz Khan. As a matter of fact, this Court is of the firm opinion that the complainant has thoroughly abused and misused the process of criminal law by getting the FIR lodged. Thus, it is a fit case wherein this Court is persuaded to exercise its inherent powers for quashing the prosecution launched against the petitioner vide impugned FIR. 7. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed. The impugned FIR No. 543/2015 registered at Police Station Udaimandir, Jodhpur and all further proceedings sought to be taken thereunder against the petitioner are hereby quashed.