JUDGMENT B.A.Patil, J. - Since these cases are interconnected to each other and since common question of law and facts are involved, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl.P.No.4020/2019 and Crl.P.No.4738/2019 have been preferred by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash FIR in Crime No.47/2019 and 111/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC of Ashoknagar police station pending on the file of IV Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru. Crl.P.No.3747/2020 has been filed by petitionersaccused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.170/2020 of Ashoknagar police station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 3. I have heard Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for Sri.Shyam Sundar.M.S., learned counsel for petitioneraccused and Sri.Abhilash Raju, learned counsel for Sri.A.R.Desai, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4020/2019; Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for Sri.S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel for petitioner-accused and Sri.Navkesh Bathra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4738/2019; and Sri.Abhilash Raju, learned counsel for Sri.A.R.Desai, learned counsel for petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant in Crl.P.No.3747/2020; and Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State in all the three cases. 4. The brief facts of the case in Crl.P.No.4020/2019 are that complainant-respondent No.2 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU for short) dated 17.4.2013 in respect of Sy.No.212 of Gattihalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk measuring 2 acres 38 guntas with petitioner-accused for development of the said land for formation of layout. Thereafter, they have approached the Government offices for necessary sanctions. Subsequently, petitioner-accused expressed his intention to sell the land and complainant accepted the said offer to purchase the land for a valuable consideration and accordingly, petitioner-accused got executed a sale deed dated 13.11.2013 and the same was agreed to be submitted before the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration. On 13.11.2013, though it was submitted, it was not registered due to some technical issues and was postponed by petitioner-accused to some other day. Thereafter, several times complainant approached the petitioner-accused to complete the formalities of registration as agreed upon, but petitioner avoided and thereby, he has cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered. 5. Thereafter, several times complainant approached the petitioner-accused to complete the formalities of registration as agreed upon, but petitioner avoided and thereby, he has cheated the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered. 5. The brief facts of the case in Crl.P.No.4738/2019 are that respondent No.2 on behalf of M/s.Indraprastha Shelters Pvt. Ltd., was carrying on the business of land development. Petitioner-accused approached the said company by representing that he has purchased certain government lands in public auction. One of such property is bearing Sy.No.80 situate at Kittaganuru village, Biddarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk measuring 6 acres and another property in Sy.No.81 measuring 1 acre of the same village. He further represented that the title is clear and already he had made 25% of payment and he has to make balance amount to the Government and in that light, a MOU dated 04.08.2011 has been entered with the complainant and accordingly, an amount of Rs.7 crores has been paid to the petitioner-accused by the complainant. The petitioner-accused agreed to register the land for joint development and requested another sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards registration charges. Considering the situation and in good faith, Rs.15 lakhs in addition to Rs.7 crores has been paid by the complainant. Subsequently, petitioner-accused started delaying and in the meanwhile, created an encumbrance on the said property to the extent of Rs.3 crores from one Mr.Nagaraj and thereby, he has cheated the complainant. Accordingly, complaint came to be filed requesting to take action against him. 6. The brief facts of the case in Crl.P.No.3747/2020 are that, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have entered into a MOU on 04.08.2011 for development of property bearing Sy.Nos.80 and 81 of Kittaganooru village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk which was converted for non-agricultural residential purpose on 20.2.2009 totally measuring 7 acres. Petitioner No.1 paid a sum of Rs.7 crores as refundable deposit to respondent No.2. Further, petitioner No.2 entered into MOU dated 17.4.2013 for development of Sy.No.212 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas situate at Gattihalli village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, pursuant to which, petitioner No.2 paid a non-refundable security deposit of Rs.9 crores to respondent No.2. Notwithstanding the said MOU with petitioner No.1, respondent No.1 created third party interest in the property by depositing the title deed on 4.1.2018. As such, complaint came to be filed by petitioner No.1 before Ashok Nagar police on 09.04.2019. Notwithstanding the said MOU with petitioner No.1, respondent No.1 created third party interest in the property by depositing the title deed on 4.1.2018. As such, complaint came to be filed by petitioner No.1 before Ashok Nagar police on 09.04.2019. Meanwhile, petitioner No.2 to protect his interest and investment, filed O.S.No.437/2018 before the Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Anekal and has obtained ex parte interim order of temporary injunction restraining respondent No.2 from alienating the property. As such, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against petitioners in Crime No.170/2020 alleging that petitioners demanded a sum of Rs.1 crore and also registration of three sites in the name of petitioner No.2 to settle the dispute and also to withdraw O.S.No.437/2018. 7. It is the submission of Sri.Kiran.S.Javali, learned counsel for petitioners-accused that the dispute is in respect of proprietary transaction wherein a MOU has been entered into between the parties. There is no dispute with regard to payment of amount by the complainant. A joint development agreement has also been entered. The only allegation made by the complainant is that the accused ought not to have mortgaged the property and raised loan of Rs.3 crores. It is his submission that the accused had issued termination notice and no action has been taken on the same. A plain reading of the contents of the complaint discloses the fact that it is purely a civil dispute and the complainant had tried to give the cloak of criminality to a purely civil dispute. It is his further submission that in the complaint itself complainant has requested for a direction to the accused to execute absolute sale deed in terms of MOU dated 17.4.2013, which itself indicates that there is no criminality and that civil rights are tried to be converted into criminal with an intention to bring pressure on the accused. It is his further submission that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC have not been made out to take any action on the basis of the complaint. There is a delay of several years and even if the alleged offence has been committed the complaint is barred by limitation and has been filed as a last resort to pressurize the accused for settling the civil dispute and to completely drain the petitioner. There is a delay of several years and even if the alleged offence has been committed the complaint is barred by limitation and has been filed as a last resort to pressurize the accused for settling the civil dispute and to completely drain the petitioner. The complainant has not raised a little finger as against the accused for a period of 7 years and now belatedly, he has filed the complaint. The said complaint is used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking a private vendetta with an ulterior motive to pressurize the accused. If there is insufficient evidence and material then this Court can quash the proceedings. It is his further submission that when the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of an offence, this Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. In order to substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Pratibha Vs. Rameshwari Devi and others, (2007) 12 SCC 369 . It is his further submission that there was no intention to play any fraud at the time of making the promise. If the registration of a case is malafide, frivolous or vexatious, then the proceedings will have to be quashed. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petitions and to quash the proceedings. 8. Per-Contra, learned counsel for respondentcomplainant vehemently argued and submitted that MOU has been admitted by the accused and in violation of the MOU, by mortgaging the property, amount has been raised that itself amounts to cheating the complainant. This Court cannot interfere at this initial stage, when the investigation is still going on. It is his further submission that if there is no abuse of process of law and if cryptic grounds have been made out, then the Court cannot quash the proceedings. It is his further submission that a right has been created on the complainant under the MOU and a civil suit has been filed and an injunction order has also been obtained. A responsibility is cast on the accused to execute the sale deed and to give possession. Still the investigation is going on and no interference or indulgence of this Court is required to quash the proceedings. A responsibility is cast on the accused to execute the sale deed and to give possession. Still the investigation is going on and no interference or indulgence of this Court is required to quash the proceedings. It is his further submission that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made in the complaint are of civil in nature. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petitions. In order to support his contention, he has relied upon one more decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2019) 14 SCC 350 . 9. The learned High Court Government pleader by supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant prayed to dismiss the petitions. 10. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioners in Crl.P.No.3747/2020 that the present complaint is nothing but a counter blast to the complaint lodged as against the respondent No.2. After filing of the complaint by the petitioners-accused and in order to overreach the order passed by the civil Court in O.S.No.437/2018 the present complaint has been filed. It is his further submission that the complainant is making an attempt to take down two birds with one stone. The dispute which is essentially in a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence, in such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, then the criminal proceedings initiated will have to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of Court. In order to substantiate his said contention he relied upon the decision in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 . It is submitted that the pending civil suit will take care of all the issues and if the criminal proceedings are allowed to be continued, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 11. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 12. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition. 11. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-accused and the complainant have entered into MOU dated 17.4.2013 and also other MOU s and they were intending to develop layouts and subsequently, they were also having intention to sell the land and in that regard there are some transactions and payment of the amount. It is also not in dispute that a civil suit has been filed in O.S.No.437/2018 and an injunction also has been obtained. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-accused has mortgaged the property and raised the loan. I am conscious of the fact that the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases and the power can be invoked only to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. It is also trite law that at this juncture this Court cannot go into the depth and come to the conclusion that it is a case for acquittal or otherwise. It is the contention of the learned counsel for complainant that the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appears to be of civil in nature. In order to substantiate his contention he has relied upon the decision in Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar s case quoted supra, wherein at paragraph No.9 it has been observed as under: 9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the trial court issuing summons to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses prima facie, offences that are alleged against the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted. 13. It is the submission of the learned counsel for accused that the complaint filed is of a civil in nature and complainant is trying to give a cloak of criminality to a purely civil dispute. On perusal of records, it is seen that both parties have entered into MOU and have kept silent for a long time and subsequently, the complainant has filed O.S.No.437/2018 and has obtained an order of injunction. On perusal of records it appears that to overreach the order passed by the Civil Court, by making false and frivolous allegations complaints have been filed as against the petitioner-accused and as a counter blast the accused also has filed one more complaint which has been challenged in Crl.P.No.3747/2020. Whether the complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. If the essential ingredients of criminal offence are present, then the Court need not exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but if the complaint discloses civil transactions which may also have criminal texture and if it is essentially of a civil in nature and is given a cloak of criminal offence, then under such circumstances, if civil remedy is available, the Court cannot hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra quoted supra, wherein at paragraph No.12 it is observed as under: 12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. 14. Admittedly, the civil suit is also pending between the parties. If pending civil suit takes care of all the issues involved in the case, under such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings would be abuse of process of law. Even as could be seen from the contents of the complaint in Crime No.47/2019, the complainant has sought for a direction to the accused execute absolute sale deed in terms of the MOU dated 17.4.2013 and as a counterblast, the complaint in Crime No.111/2019 has also been filed. If all the issues could be taken care of in a civil suit, continuation of criminal cases would be abuse of process of law. This proposition of law has also been laid in the case of Paramjeet Batra, referred supra, wherein at paragraphs Nos.13 and 14 it has been observed as under: 13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by Respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to Respondent 2. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by Respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to Respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise. 14. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29-9-2011 [Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 287 of 2005, order dated 29- 9-2011 (Utt)] passed by the Uttarakhand High Court is set aside. The entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 723 of 2005 (Charge-sheet No. 32 of 2005), and the order of cognizance dated 22-3-2005 passed thereon by the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar against the appellant, Respondents 3 and 4 and against accused Rajpal for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 447, 448 read with Section 34 IPC are quashed and set aside. This order will however have no effect on the pending civil suit between the parties. Needless to say that the court, seized of the said suit, shall decide it independently and in accordance with law. 15. Keeping in view the said proposition of law and the factual matrix of the cases on hand, it clearly indicates that a dispute which is essentially civil in nature is given a cloak of criminality. When a civil remedy is available, continuation of criminal proceedings appears to be abuse of process of law. In that light, petitioners have made out a case to quash the proceedings. 16. Accordingly, all the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Crime No.47/2019 and Crime No.111/2019 respectively, pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and the proceedings in Crime No.170/2020 pending on the file of XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru are hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the petitions, all the pending Interlocutory Applications are also disposed of.