ORDER : 1. Petitioner has sought to quash the registration of the FIR No.147/2011 by Tunganagar Police Station, Shimoga for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2. 3. Respondent No.1 filed a private complaint before the 3rd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shimoga alleging that he entered into a negotiation with the petitioner herein for the purchase of an old excavator L&T Komatsu for Rs.16,65,000/- on 23.10.2008 in the office of the complainant. The original documents relating to the said vehicle were in the custody of the Bank. The petitioner promised to handover the original documents later. Inspite of repeated demands and correspondence, the petitioner failed to handover the documents. 4. It is further stated that the petitioner came to Shimoga and gave a receipt on 23.09.2009. Inspite of receiving the amount and the assurance to return the documents within 30 days, the petitioner failed to honor his commitment and hence, the respondent No.1 sought criminal action against the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a L&T Komatsu vehicle was purchased by the petitioner in 2007 for a total value of Rs.47,00,000/-. The said vehicle was damaged during a riot in 2008 and a police case was registered in this regard. The petitioner claimed total loss from the insurer and in final settlement thereof, a sum of Rs.20,70,444/- was released to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.10.2018. The petitioner was permitted to retain the burnt machinery. On account of the severe damage, the vehicle had completely turned into a scrap and at that juncture respondent No.1 offered to buy the scrap material for Rs.16,00,000/- and odd and paid the amount and took the delivery of the damaged vehicle and dismantled the same and carried the scrap in October, 2008. The private complaint came to be filed about three years thereafter on 19.03.2011 making false and baseless allegations. The complaint allegations are not supported by documents making out the offence under Section 420. Inspite of it, learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation by the police which is patently illegal and therefore, the same is required to be quashed by this Court. 6. The complaint allegations are not supported by documents making out the offence under Section 420. Inspite of it, learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation by the police which is patently illegal and therefore, the same is required to be quashed by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 concedes that other than the averments made in the private complaint, no other documents are available to substantiate the transaction alleged in the complaint. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the allegations made in the private complaint make out the offence and therefore, learned Magistrate was justified in referring the complaint for investigation. 8. Considered the arguments and perused the records. 9. The records produced by the petitioner prima-facie indicate that the vehicle in question had sustained severe damage and the petitioner has claimed total loss from the insurance and in full and final settlement thereof, a sum of Rs.20,70,444/- was released to the petitioner. The consent letter dated 13.10.2008 discloses that it was a burnt machinery and the petitioner had undertaken to retain the possession thereof. In the said circumstance, the contention of the petitioner that he has entered into an agreement with the complainant to buy aforesaid vehicle and the petitioner has failed to pass on the documents of title in respect of the said vehicle appear to be highly improbable and unbelievable. 10. Except making bald allegations that there was negotiation for purchase in the office of the complainant, the complaint does not disclose either any agreement or any receipt for having paid the consideration to the petitioner on the alleged date i.e., 23.10.2008 as stated in the complaint. The receipt appended to the private complaint is seriously disputed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the said receipt cannot be correlated to the averments made in the complaint. If the complaint averments are believed, it goes to show that there was an agreement in respect of the said vehicle on 23.10.2008. If so, there was absolutely no reason for the petitioner to retain the original title deeds with him for more than three years, if complete sale had taken place and respondent No.1 had taken possession of vehicle. In all probability he could not have operated the said vehicle or the machinery without proper documents. If so, there was absolutely no reason for the petitioner to retain the original title deeds with him for more than three years, if complete sale had taken place and respondent No.1 had taken possession of vehicle. In all probability he could not have operated the said vehicle or the machinery without proper documents. Thereafter the allegations made in the petition, even if accepted on its face value do not disclose any dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner making him liable for prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. If for any reason the alleged agreement has not been honored by the petitioner as contended, civil remedy was very much available to respondent No.1 which he has not resorted to even after the lapse of three years from the date of the alleged transaction. In the circumstance of the case, the action initiated against the petitioner in my view, smacks of malafides and has turned out to be an abuse of process of law and therefore cannot be proceeded with. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in FIR No.147/2011 of Tunganagar Police Station, Shimoga, now pending in C.C.No.2074/2011, on the file of Learned III Additional Civil judge & JMFC, Shimoga for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, are hereby quashed.