ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned Additional SPP. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking to quash the FIR, charge-sheet and entire proceedings in Crime No. 615/2012 converted as C.C. No. 1659/2013 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 34, 504, 420, 323, 342 of IPC. 3. After investigation, the charge-sheet is filed against all the petitioners herein for the above offences. In the charge-sheet it is stated that the petitioner nos. 5 to 16 herein are the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 100/1 of Harokyathanahalli village measuring 2 acres and 8 guntas. In respect of this property, petitioner nos. 5 to 16 entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.05.2012, agreeing to sell the aforesaid property to the complainant namely Sri. Ravi Y./Respondent No. 2, for a total consideration of Rs.1,54,12,500/-. The material allegations made in the charge-sheet is that the petitioners herein prevailed upon the respondent no. 1 to cancel the aforesaid agreement of sale, promising to pay a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- including the sum Rs.50,00,000/- which is said to have been advanced at the time of entering into an agreement. It is alleged that, on the said promise the complainant was made to enter into an agreement of cancellation dated 23.11.2012. But the petitioners did not pay the aforesaid promised amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- and thereby the petitioners have cheated the complainant within the meaning of Section 420 of IPC. 4. Further, it is stated that on 23.11.2012, when complainant/respondent no. 2 requested for the payment of aforesaid promised amount, petitioner nos. 1 to 4 assaulted the complainant with hands and also abused him with vulgar words and also issued threat of life. 5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the initial agreement of sale dated 19.05.2012 was entered into by petitioner nos. 5 to 16 agreeing to sell the aforesaid property to respondent no. 2 for a total consideration of Rs.1,54,12,500/-. It is a registered agreement of sale. Under the said agreement, the respondent no. 2 had paid in all Rs.37,50,000/- which is duly acknowledged in the said sale agreement. The aforesaid agreement of sale came to be mutually cancelled by executing a subsequent agreement of cancellation dated 23.11.2012. 2 for a total consideration of Rs.1,54,12,500/-. It is a registered agreement of sale. Under the said agreement, the respondent no. 2 had paid in all Rs.37,50,000/- which is duly acknowledged in the said sale agreement. The aforesaid agreement of sale came to be mutually cancelled by executing a subsequent agreement of cancellation dated 23.11.2012. This document is also a registered document whereunder the advance amount received from respondent no. 2 has been returned to the respondent no. 2 and the same is acknowledged in the registered deed of cancellation. Under such circumstances there is absolutely no cause of action whatsoever for the respondent no. 2 to invoke criminal jurisdiction on the purported contention that the amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- was promised to respondent no. 2 by petitioner nos. 5 to 16. 6. Countering the above argument, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that the cancellation agreement was entered into solely on the basis of promise made by the petitioner nos. 5 to 16 to pay a total sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- including a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- which was paid under the agreement of sale. The petitioners having not honoured the said promise, instead have taken the cancellation agreement from respondent no. 2, the ingredients of Section 420 are clearly made out, and during the investigation, the Investigating Agency having collected supporting material in proof of the alleged offence, there is absolutely no ground for quashing the proceedings. 7. Learned Additional SPP also supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and submits that the material collected by Investigation Agency prima facie make out the offence alleged against the petitioner and therefore, there is no reason for quashing the proceedings. 8. Respondent No. 2 does not dispute the fact that he had entered into an agreement of sale dated 19.05.2012, wherein he has agreed to purchase the total extent of 2 acres and 8 guntas for a total consideration of Rs.1,54,12,500/-. It is recited in the said registered agreement of sale that a sum of Rs.37,50,000/- was paid by respondent no. 2 to the vendors namely petitioner nos. 5 to 16 as advance sale consideration. He is bound by the said recitals. The subsequent cancellation agreement dated 19.05.2012 specifically recites that the entire advance amount paid under the aforesaid agreement of sale has been returned to respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 to the vendors namely petitioner nos. 5 to 16 as advance sale consideration. He is bound by the said recitals. The subsequent cancellation agreement dated 19.05.2012 specifically recites that the entire advance amount paid under the aforesaid agreement of sale has been returned to respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 has duly acknowledged the same. Under the said circumstances, respondent no. 2 is estopped from contending that on the promise of paying a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- by petitioner nos. 5 to 16, he had executed the aforesaid cancellation agreement. 9. It is trite law that when a transaction is evidenced by a written contract, all proceedings and contemporaneous oral expressions get merged in the writing or displaced by it. In the case of Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thendani, reported in ILR 2004 (1) Karnataka 713, it is explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, that this rule has been best described by Wigmore stating that “the rule is no sense a rule of evidence, but a rule of substantive law.” In the very same decision, it is observed that: “It is likewise a general and most inflexible rule that wherever written instruments are appointed, either by the requirement or law, or by the contract of the parties, to be repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is excluded from being used either as a substitute for such instruments, or to contradict or alert them. This is a matter both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such instruments are in their own nature and origin, entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol evidence. It is of policy because it would be attended with great mischief if those instruments, upon which men’s rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence.” 10. The contentions urged by respondent no. 2 are contrary to the recitals of the registered agreement. Even though the respondent has alleged that prior to the execution of cancellation agreement, petitioner nos. 5 to 16 promised to refund a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- including Rs.50,00,000/- which is stated to have been paid by him under the agreement, the Investigating Agency has not collected any material to show that apart from Rs.37,00,000/- which is duly acknowledged in the agreement of sale, the respondent no. 2 has paid any part of the sale consideration. 5 to 16 promised to refund a sum of Rs.1,25,00,000/- including Rs.50,00,000/- which is stated to have been paid by him under the agreement, the Investigating Agency has not collected any material to show that apart from Rs.37,00,000/- which is duly acknowledged in the agreement of sale, the respondent no. 2 has paid any part of the sale consideration. This itself is sufficient to show that the allegations made by respondent no. 2 are false and baseless. In any event the alleged oral promise cannot give rise to a criminal offence, much less to an offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. when respondent no. 2 himself has executed the cancellation agreement acknowledging the refund of entire advance amount in full and final settlement. The allegations made in the complaint are arising out of the agreement to sale which is purely civil in nature. None of the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC are attracted to the facts of the case. 11. The allegations of the alleged assault and threat of life do not make out the offence against the petitioners. The incident is said to have taken place on 23.11.2012. The complaint is filed on 29.11.2012. There is no supporting evidence to substantiate these allegations. Entire complaint having originated in the alleged civil dispute, the allegations of assault appear to have been made only to give a color of criminal offence. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, am of the view that the initiation of criminal proceedings are sheer abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings are obliquely motivated. The material collected by the Investigating Agency do not make out the offence of cheating. Hence, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No. 615/2012 converted as C.C. No. 1659/2013, pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, are quashed.