JUDGMENT : D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J. 1. Criminal Petition No. 7768 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 to quash all further proceedings against him in Crime No. 95 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 2. Criminal Petition No. 7790 of 2018 is filed by the petitioners-Accused Nos. 2 and 3 to quash the proceedings against them in the same Crime No. 95 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam. 3. Since both the cases arise out of the same issue and are filed questioning the same FIR, they are taken up together for hearing. 4. This Court has heard Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd to 4th respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor-appearing for the State. 5. The essential ground on which the quashing is sought is that a pure civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that there is a civil suit i.e. O.S. No. 41 of 2015, which is pending on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, for cancellation of three Registered Powers of Attorney-cum-sale agreements, dated 24.07.2012. The suit is filed in July, 2015. The FIR, as per the learned counsel was registered on 24.03.2018, purely as a counter blast to the civil suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the offence under Section 420 IPC is not at all made out as there is no element of cheating right from the inception. He points out that the land transactions, which are purely of a civil flavour are being converted into a criminal case. He points out that a reading of the complaint itself shows that the allegation of the de facto-complainant is that they were cheated by the petitioners. He submits that this cannot be true as the parties are experienced businessman. He also points out that a reading of the complaint shows that ultimately 1400 sq. yards instead of 1500 sq. yards was also agreed be registered, failing which they agreed to would pay the equivalent money. As per the complaint even this part of the agreement was not implemented and therefore the case of cheating has been registered. 6. He also points out that a reading of the complaint shows that ultimately 1400 sq. yards instead of 1500 sq. yards was also agreed be registered, failing which they agreed to would pay the equivalent money. As per the complaint even this part of the agreement was not implemented and therefore the case of cheating has been registered. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the case law Joseph Salvaraj A. vs. State of Gujarat and Others, (2011) 7 SCC 59 , M. Suresh and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another, (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 876, Vikram Johar vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2019) 1 Law ISC 123, Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another vs. State of Delhi, (2019) Cri. L.J. 1297 and Manik Taneja and Another vs. State of Karnataka and Another, (2015) 7 SCC 423 argued that this is purely a civil transaction and that there is virtually no element of cheating and that no other offence is also present in this case. The sum and substance of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that this is a case in which an experienced businessmen have entered into a land transaction, which unfortunately did not fructify as they wanted. He points out that the transactions relates to the period 2012 and a deed of acceptance was also entered into between the parties and therefore he submits that in view of the case law cited this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. He also points out that in the interim period the charge sheet has also been filed and that as per the settled law on the subject, the FIR can be quashed even if the charge sheet is filed. 7. Coming to the offence under Section 506 IPC also learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the mere abuse of a person does not satisfy the ingredients of criminal intimidation. According to him the ingredients of intimidation which have defined in Sections 504 and 506 IPC and also in the judgment reported in Vikram Johar case (supra) are not at all fulfilled. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of all the proceedings. 8. According to him the ingredients of intimidation which have defined in Sections 504 and 506 IPC and also in the judgment reported in Vikram Johar case (supra) are not at all fulfilled. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for quashing of all the proceedings. 8. In reply to this Sri T. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the private respondents relying upon Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur vs. State of Gujarat, (2017) 99 SCC 641 argued that the present case is not merely a private dispute over land transaction but includes other allegations having bearing on the society's interest. Therefore, he submits that this is not a case to quash the proceedings. He also points out that since lot of time has elapsed this is a fit case to let the trial go ahead and not a case to quash the entire proceedings at this stage. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor also argued on similar lines and submits that this is not the stage to quash all further proceedings and that the trial should go ahead. 10. This Court notices that the offences that are alleged against the petitioners are under sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. As has been held time and again by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India a case under Section 420 IPC should necessarily have ingredients of the intention to deceive and cheat right from the inception. A prima-facie reading of the complaint should show that right from the beginning of the transaction the accused had the intention of deceiving the complainant. If the facts of the case on hand are seen, it is apparent that basing on General Power of Attorney, three petitioners got the land registered in the name of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant realised that the land belongs to the Government. Later, the petitioners promised to register 1500 sq. yards of undisputed site out of 4000 sq. yards and they have agreed to cancel the earlier documents. The said agreement is also not complied. Thereafter, they agreed to register 1400 sq. yards out of the allotted 1500 sq. yards, which is not disputed. This was also not complied. This is the sum and substance of the complaint that has been lodged. 11. yards and they have agreed to cancel the earlier documents. The said agreement is also not complied. Thereafter, they agreed to register 1400 sq. yards out of the allotted 1500 sq. yards, which is not disputed. This was also not complied. This is the sum and substance of the complaint that has been lodged. 11. If the facts are examined against the backdrop of the case law on the subject, it is clear that this appears to be more of a transaction that has gone out of the control rather than an out and out case of cheating. Even the offence of Section 506 IPC, in the opinion of this Court, is not clearly visible from the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is unable to find out that there was criminal intimidation. Other than "abuse" there does not appear to be an act of threatening, an injury to the reputation etc. of the complainant and that this was done with an intention to cause an alarm. 12. Lastly, the judgment cited by learned counsel for the private respondents i.e. Parbatbhai Aahir Case (supra) deals with a case of sale of a number of plots. This is a case of wherein forgery in the General Power of Attorney on the basis of which land was sold is involved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India noted that the cases involved the allegation of extortion, forgery, fabrication of document, utilisation of fabricated document to effectuate transfers of title. In that circumstance, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that since there is a bearing on society and it is not merely a private dispute, such offences cannot be quashed. In the case on hand, this Court does not find that any vital societal interest is, per se involved in these cases. 13. In the opinion of this Court, this is a case of civil transaction, which has gone wrong and this Court is of the opinion that the case laws cited by the petitioners are more appropriate to the case on hand. As noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India more than once that the Criminal Procedure should not be used as a mode and method to settle the civil dispute. 14. As noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India more than once that the Criminal Procedure should not be used as a mode and method to settle the civil dispute. 14. This Court is of the opinion that if the facts of the case are viewed against the backdrop of the case law cited, the critical element of cheating, intentional dishonest intention right from the first day is not made out. Even the offence of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC is also not made out. The facts of the case show that this is more a civil dispute rather than a pure criminal case. 15. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of all further proceedings in Crime No. 95 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam, which is now subject matter of Calendar Case No. 317 of 2018 pending on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City, would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Hence this court is of the opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for interference. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 95 of 2018 of Duvvada Police Station, Visakhapatnam are quashed. 17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Criminal Petitions shall stand closed.