JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. The present application has been filed by the applicants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short) seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-314 of 2016 registered with “A” Division Police Station, District Rajkot for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short). 2. Rule. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned APP for the respondent-State and Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-original complainant waive service of Rule for the respective respondents. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of present application are as under: 3.1 The respondent no. 2-original complainant had filed the impugned FIR, inter-alia, alleging that the complainant's firm viz. “Gujarat Furniture” had a bank account in State Bank of India, R.K. Nagar Branch being A/c. No. 10293003749. The complainant and his elder brother i.e. the applicant No. 1 names were there in the bank account as the owners and the said account was being operated by the signatures of the complainant and the applicant No. 1. It is alleged that due to death of the elder son of the complainant in the year 1994, he had mental mental shock and lost interest in the business and he could not pay the attention in the firm. It is further alleged in the complaint that after 3/4 years when he came out from the shock, he started attending the firm. It is alleged that at that point of time, the applicant No. 1 told to the complainant that the business and administration of Gujarat Furniture is going on well and he is paying full attention and asked him not to worry about the business. It is further stated in the complaint that the applicant No. 1 was looking after the payment of income-tax for years 1994 to 2009. It is further stated in the FIR that his nephew viz. Ketan was helping in the business of firm. 3.2 It is alleged that in the month of September, 2009, an oral agreement was made in the family and the partition of “Gujarat Furniture” has taken place. It is further stated in the FIR that his nephew viz. Ketan was helping in the business of firm. 3.2 It is alleged that in the month of September, 2009, an oral agreement was made in the family and the partition of “Gujarat Furniture” has taken place. It is further alleged that the complainant asked the Books of Accounts of the firm from the applicant No. 1 for the period before 2009, as it was in his possession, but, the applicant No. 1 did not reply. It is further alleged that in the year 2012, a family settlement was arrived at and all the properties were partitioned and agreement for settlement was made in the year 2012. It is further alleged that the complainant got the Books of Accounts prior to 2009 and after verifying the same, he found certain financial irregularities on verifying the bank transactions of Bank A/c No. 10293003749, and therefore, the complainant sought for the information from the bank under the Right to Information Act, 2005 about his specimen signature and Xerox copies of earlier cheques. It is alleged in the FIR that, he noticed the difference in signatures and therefore, he got an opinion from the private handwriting expert. Thereafter, he believed that in the transactions made from 1994 to 2009 in the aforesaid joint bank account of the firm, certain amounts were deposited in the account of the family members of the complainant. It is further alleged that the applicants have put the forged signatures on certain cheques of the said account of the firm. Out of many transactions, 13 cheques were produced by the complainant before the Police Commissioner, totaling Rs. 8,83,235/-. It is further alleged that other cheques being No. 479304, 479377, 294604, 294605 and 294633, totaling Rs. 17,00,000/- which are seized by the police in pursuance to the application given by the complainant. It is further alleged that from 1994 to 2009, the accused have committed misappropriation of the said amount from the account of bank. With these sort of allegations, the FIR is lodged by the respondent no. 2original complainant. 4. Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the applicants submits that they are unnecessarily roped in the FIR with an ulterior and oblique motive just with a view to restrain the present applicants from asking any shares from the firm, which was dissolved in the year 2012 by an agreement. 2original complainant. 4. Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the applicants submits that they are unnecessarily roped in the FIR with an ulterior and oblique motive just with a view to restrain the present applicants from asking any shares from the firm, which was dissolved in the year 2012 by an agreement. 4.1 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the Civil Suit was instituted before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot on 26.07.2016 for the recovery of amount which was to be given to the applicants after dissolution of the firm and the present FIR is filed on 04.10.2016 as a counter blast. 4.2 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the complainant and the present applicants are real brothers and were the partners of “Gujarat Furniture.” He has submitted that said partnership firm came to an end, as there was a family partition and retirement deed also came to be executed on 07.09.2012. All the accounts of the firm were made clear to the parties. He has further submitted that as per the family understanding, the complainant and his family, who are party no. 1 in the settlement deed had to pay Rs. 71,00,000/- to the party no. 2. Out of the said amount only Rs. 25,00,000/- was paid. Thereafter, the complainant side did not act as per the settlement and hence, the applicants were constrained to institute Summery Suit No. 13 of 2016 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot for recovery of the said amount. 4.3 Learned advocate for the applicants has submitted that the FIR is belatedly filed for the alleged offences committed in the year 2009. He has submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal that mismanagement and irregularities were alleged to have been committed by the applicants during 1994 to 2009. However, the FIR is filed in 2016 that too only after institution of the civil suit. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned FIR may be quashed. 5. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned APP for the respondent-State has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by this Court, the Investigating Officer had further investigated the alleged offences and also called for the opinion of the FSL. She has submitted that as per the FSL Report dated 02.11.2017 with reference to the specimen signatures of the applicant no. Ms. Hansa Punani, learned APP for the respondent-State has submitted that pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2017, passed by this Court, the Investigating Officer had further investigated the alleged offences and also called for the opinion of the FSL. She has submitted that as per the FSL Report dated 02.11.2017 with reference to the specimen signatures of the applicant no. 2, it was opined that “no definite opinion could be expressed” in this regard. Thus, she has submitted that as per the FSL Report, it is not established that the applicant no. 2 had forged the signatures, as alleged by the present complainant. 6. Mr. Nikhil Kariel, learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-original complainant has submitted that the complainant came to know about the misappropriation and fraud committed by the applicants in the year 2012 only. He has submitted that in fact the FIR is filed prior to the institution of the civil suit by the applicants and the same is not an afterthought. Mr. Karial has contended that there is no signatures on the cheques, hence he has urged that the impugned FIR may not be quashed and set aside. 6.1 Learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-original complainant has submitted that, at this stage, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and the investigation may be allowed to proceed further. He has further submitted that no affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 2-original complainant in the matter, as he is waiting for FSL report. Now, the FSL report is obtained and he would like to file affidavit to the effect that in the year 2012, the complainant came to know about the mismanagement and irregularities committed by the accused and thereafter, he made various complaints, however, no FIR to that effect was registered and hence, it cannot be said that the civil suit is instituted after registration of the FIR. Thus, he has submitted that the present writ application may not be entertained. 6.2 Learned advocate for the respondent no. 2-original complainant has further submitted that in fact, the FSL report has opined that the concerned documents/cheques do not reveal the signatures of the complainant and hence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and set aside. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The present application has abated apropos applicant no. 2-original complainant has further submitted that in fact, the FSL report has opined that the concerned documents/cheques do not reveal the signatures of the complainant and hence, the impugned FIR may not be quashed and set aside. 7. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. The present application has abated apropos applicant no. 1 Ramnikbhai Haraknchand Mehta since he has passed away during the pendency of the present writ application. 8. By the order dated 16.03.2017, after noticing the settlement/Memorandum of Understanding (MoU for short) entered into between the applicants and the complainant as well as pendency of civil suit in the year 2016, this Court had called for the opinion of hand writing expert. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, it is opined in the FSL report that no definite opinion could be expressed as regards the disputed signatures of the applicant no. 2. 8.1 It is not in dispute that the present applicants and complainant are real brothers and were the partners of the firm-Gujarat Furniture. It is also not in dispute that MoU was executed by the concerned family members, including the present complainant as well as the applicants for partition and as per the conditions of the MoU, the complainant was supposed to pay Rs. 71,00,000/- to his brothers, including the present applicants. However, at that point of time, he has paid Rs. 25,00,000/- cash and thereafter, he has failed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 46,00,000/-. The applicants were constrained to institute Summary Suit No. 13 of 2016 before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot for recovery of the rest of the amount. The contents of the FIR reveal that the allegations leveled by the complainant pertains to the year 1994 to 2009 in which he has alleged that the applicants have made forged signatures. Moreover, it appears that to settle the civil dispute, the impugned FIR has been lodged for applying pressure. The dispute which falls within the domain of civil dispute is converted into criminal case. 8.2 The contention of the learned advocate for the respondent no. 2original complainant is that it cannot be said that after institution of the civil suit, the impugned FIR has been filed, as the present complainant has made his best efforts to lodge FIR, but the same was not lodged by the police authorities. 8.2 The contention of the learned advocate for the respondent no. 2original complainant is that it cannot be said that after institution of the civil suit, the impugned FIR has been filed, as the present complainant has made his best efforts to lodge FIR, but the same was not lodged by the police authorities. This Court has perused the contents of the FIR in column no. 8, which indicate about the reason for belated lodgment of FIR and the same is blank. The complainant has not mentioned any reason for the belated lodgment of the FIR and has blissfully remained silent. 8.3 The Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Singh (D) through LRs. vs. Gurpal Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 775 , has observed thus: “20. In view of the above, the Judgment and order of the High Court dated 13.02.2009 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. However, the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant so. The agreement to sell in favour of the appellants' father is dated 22.10.1988 and sale deed was to be executed and registered by 15.06.1989. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 filed Civil Suit No. 60/1989 in 1989. It is difficult to believe that the appellants' father was not aware of the pendency of that suit. No explanation has been furnished as to why after expiry of the date of execution of the sale deed in favour of Kishan Singh, i.e. 15.06.1989, the appellants' father did not file the suit for specific performance which was subsequently filed on 6.2.1996 as Civil Suit No. 81/1996. Even if it is presumed that Kishan Singh was not aware of pendency of suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, no explanation could be furnished that in case, the appellants' father filed another Suit No. 1075/1996 for setting aside the decree dated 8.5.1996 in Civil Suit No. 60/1989, why did he wait till the decision of that suit for lodging FIR, as the civil and criminal proceedings could have proceeded simultaneously. The FIR has been filed only on 23.07.2002 i.e. after filing the RFA No. 2488/2002 before the High Court on 15.07.2002. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the appellants' father in filing the FIR and there is no explanation whatsoever for the same. 21. The FIR has been filed only on 23.07.2002 i.e. after filing the RFA No. 2488/2002 before the High Court on 15.07.2002. Therefore, there is an inordinate delay on the part of the appellants' father in filing the FIR and there is no explanation whatsoever for the same. 21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of its version. In case, there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR does not make the complainant's case improbable when such delay is properly explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging the complaint is always fatal. Sahib Singh vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1997 SC 3247 . 22. In cases where there is a delay in lodging a FIR, the Court has to look for a plausible explanation for such delay. In absence of such an explanation, the delay may be fatal. The reason for quashing such proceedings may not be merely that the allegations were an after thought or had given a coloured version of events. In such cases the court should carefully examine the facts before it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who failed to succeed before the Civil Court may initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the other side with mala-fide intentions or the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants should not be permitted to give vent to their frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court. The court proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment and persecution. In such a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a view to spite the other party because of a private and personal grudge and to enmesh the other party in long and arduous criminal proceedings, the court may take a view that it amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the facts and circumstances of the case. Chandrapal Singh and Others vs. Maharaj Singh and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1238 , State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Chandrapal Singh and Others vs. Maharaj Singh and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1238 , State of Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , G. Sagar Suri and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2000 SC 754 and Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 .” Thus, the impugned FIR deserves to be set aside on the ground of delay, as the same is bereft of particulars, as mentioned herein above. 9. Under the circumstances, considering the totality of the facts and the allegations levelled by the present complainant, it appears that the impugned FIR has been lodged with an oblique motive in order to wreak vengeance and with a view to spite the present applicants, and therefore, the impugned F.I.R. being C.R. No. I-314 of 2016 registered with “A” Division Police Station, District Rajkot as well as all other consequential proceedings arising from the impugned F.I.R. are hereby quashed and set aside. RULE is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.