ORDER : 1. By preferring this petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs :- “A. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to admit this Misc. Criminal Application. B. This Hon’ble Court may be allow this Misc. Criminal Application by quashing the impugned FIR being C.R.No.I-38/2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for offence punishable u/s. 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC qua the petitioners in the interest of justice. C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this Misc. Criminal Application, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay further proceedings of impugned FIR being C.R.No. I-38/2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC qua the petitioners in the interest of justice. D. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper.” 2. The short facts leading to the present case is as under:- 2.1 The respondent No.2 has filed impugned complaint before Gotri Police Station, Vadodara against the present applicants and one Mr. Rajiv Kanchanlal Sheth alleging that respondent No.2-complainant came into contact with accused No.1 Shri Rajiv Sheth who showed bungalow No.1 at Shil Duplex, situated near Tribhuvan Park Lane, Opp. Radhika Society, Vasna-Gotri Road, Vadodara informing the complainant that by registered document executed in the year 2006, he has sold the said premises to present applicants and they do not want to keep the said premises and want to sell the same. It is further alleged in the complaint that respondent No.2 has paid Rs.14.50 Lakhs to original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth and he had issued possession letter in her favour in the year 2008 and handed over the possession of the said premises. It is further alleged in the complaint that original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth had not executed any document in her favour despite repeated requests. As per allegations made in the complaint, the applicants had obtained loan from the State Bank of India by mortgaging the said premise and said bank started recovery proceedings, and therefore, the complainant had paid Rs.5.50 lakhs by way of installments in the loan account. As per allegations made in the complaint, the applicants had obtained loan from the State Bank of India by mortgaging the said premise and said bank started recovery proceedings, and therefore, the complainant had paid Rs.5.50 lakhs by way of installments in the loan account. It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth was not executing the sale deed and therefore, Respondent No.2 filed Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2017 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Vadodara under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. During the pendency of this suit, ICICI Bank had issued a notice of recovery in the name of applicant No.1 for due amount and thereafter, the applicants have paid loan of State Bank of India and they have obtained loan from ICICI bank. Therefore, complainant was compelled to pay Rs.20.00 Lakhs and no document has been executed by the original accused No.1 as well as by the present applicants. That, complaint was filed before Gotri Police station by the complainant on 7th April, 2017, no offence was registered by the concerned Police Officer, and therefore, the complainant had approached this Court by preferring Special Criminal Application No.650 of 2018 wherein, this Court had directed the Police to register the complaint in case if any cognizable offence is made out against the persons named in the complaint. Hence, this complaint. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Hemang Parikh for the applicants; Learned advocate Mr. Dharmendra Parikh for the respondent no.2 and Learned APP Mr. H.K. Patel for the respondent No.1-State. 4. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the applicants were the owners of the said property in the year 2007. As per contentions of the complaint, the said premises was sold in favour of the applicants in the year 2006. It is further submitted that in the entire complaint, there is not a single iota of evidence produced by the respondent No.2 to show that applicants have entered into any agreement for sale of the said premises in favour of the complainant. That, the agreement was between the original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth and the complainant. There was no negotiations at all and the applicants have not received any amount from the original complainant. That, after obtaining home loan from SBI in the year 2006, the applicants had purchased the said property by registered sale deed dated 2nd May, 2006. That, the agreement was between the original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth and the complainant. There was no negotiations at all and the applicants have not received any amount from the original complainant. That, after obtaining home loan from SBI in the year 2006, the applicants had purchased the said property by registered sale deed dated 2nd May, 2006. That, the applicants had paid the consideration partly from SBI loan and partly by applicant’s cheques of ICICI bank and partly by cash. After purchasing the said premises, the applicants had handed over possession to the original accused No.1 for the purpose of running a Guest House. It is further submitted that complainant along with her husband have filed Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2017 before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge at Vadodara for specific performance of the agreement executed by accused No.1 for registering the sale deed of the said property purchased by the applicants. As no sale deed was executed in favour of the complainant, stamp duty was returned back to the complaint, as per order passed by the Collector, Vadodara. It is further submitted that there were no direct interaction or contract between the applicants and the complainant or her husband in respect of the sale of the property owned by the applicants. As on today also property was under the occupation/possession of the complainant and rent being paid by the respondent No.2 is directly paying in the Home Loan account of the applicants. That, the complainant is enjoying the possession of the property in question at present. It is further submitted that alleged transaction entered into by the complainant is with a person who is not owner of the property and ultimately the said transaction was cancelled. That, impugned complaint filed by the respondent No.2, qua the present applicants, is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law, as civil suit is pending before the Civil Court at Vadodara. Learned advocate for the applicants submits that there is no agreement to sale entered into between the applicants and the respondent No.2-complainant and there is no privity of contract between them. It is further submitted that there is no entrustment of valuable property by respondent No.2 to the present applicants and provision of Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that there is no entrustment of valuable property by respondent No.2 to the present applicants and provision of Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the applicants to allow this petition by quashing FIR being I-CR No. 38 of 2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120 and 114 of Indian Penal Code. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the applicants has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Arjanbhai Bhagabhai Dangar Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 (O) AIJEL-HC- 237173. 5. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-original complainant has strongly and vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicants and argued that prima facie the offence under Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC against the present applicants has been established by the prosecution. That, the applicants had taken a loan on the said disputed property from State Bank of India by mortgaging the said property and as they were not repaying the loan, the authorities of SBI had started recovering the amount under the provision of SARFEASI Act. Therefore, to safeguard the possession of the disputed property, respondent No.2 and her husband had paid the loan of SBI. That, it was within knowledge of the applicants that the respondent No.2 and her husband have paid the SBI loan, another loan was taken by the applicants from ICICI bank for Rs.50,00,000/- That, the applicants also failed to make the payment of the ICICI Bank, and therefore, ICICI Bank issued notice in respect of the disputed property. Therefore, respondent No.2 filed Special Criminal Application No. 650 of 2018 before this Court. This Court was pleased to direct the Police Commissioner, Vadodara as well as Police Inspector, Gotri Police Station to look into the complaint given by the respondent No.2 on 6th April, 2017 and take a decision to register or not a complaint after making an inquiry in the matter. That, the impugned complaint is registered only after an inquiry, as per order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application 650 of 2018. That, the impugned complaint is registered only after an inquiry, as per order passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application 650 of 2018. That, respondent No.2 had filed Special Civil Suit No.30 of 2017 for specific performance before the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Vadodara with a prayer to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs for property possessed by the plaintiffs. That, the present applicants are defendants in the said suit. That, the applicants have joined hands with the accused No.1-Mr. Rajiv Sheth and they have committed the alleged offence. That, the full payment of the property from the respondent No.2 and her husband has been received and instead of executing sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 and her husband, the applicants were harassing them by taking various loans and not repaying the same in Bank. That, accused No.1 has also filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 5444 of 2018 before this Court which was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14th November, 2019. That, prima facie case is made out against the applicants. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the respondent No.2 to dismiss the present petition. 6. Learned APP appearing for the respondent-State has supported the arguments advanced by learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and submitted that from the averments made in the complaint itself by the respondent No.2, the offence is clearly committed by the present applicants. That, initial loan was taken by the present applicants from the State Bank of India and thereafter, it shifted to ICICI bank. That, loan amount was not paid by the present applicants and therefore, bank had issued notice for the disputed amount. That, recovery of the loan amount was started by the bank from the present applicants. That, respondent No.2 has paid Rs. 5.50 lakhs in installments towards the loan amount, which was received by the applicants. Even if clearing the loan amount by the respondent No.2, she was thrown out from the possessions of the disputed property. That, cheating and criminal breach of trust was made by the present applicants Prima facie, offence is clearly made out against the present applicants and from the averments made in the complaint, it cannot be said that it is purely civil dispute. That, cheating and criminal breach of trust was made by the present applicants Prima facie, offence is clearly made out against the present applicants and from the averments made in the complaint, it cannot be said that it is purely civil dispute. That, at this stage, prima facie offence punishable under Section 406, 420 120B and 114 of IPC is made out against the present applicants. Hence, it was requested by learned APP to dismiss the present petition. In support of his arguments, learned APP has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2019) 14 SCC 350 . 7. Having heard learned advocate for the applicants; learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that the offence was registered against the present applicants and accused No.1, as per complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 before Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC. Before registering the complaint by respondent No.2, one complaint filed by the complainant before the Gotri Police Station on 7th April, 2017, but, no offence was registered by the concerned police officer. Respondent No.2 has approached this Court by way of filing Special Criminal Application No.650 of 2018, wherein this Court was pleased to direct the Police to register the complaint in case of any offences is made out against the persons named in the complaint. It appears from the averments made in the complaint that she came into contact with original accused no.1-Rajiv Sheth who showed bungalow No.1 at Shil Duplex, situated near Tribhuvan Park Lane, Opp. Radhika Society, Vasna Gotri Raod, Vadodara stating that by registered document executed in the year 2006, he has sold the said premises to the present applicants and they do not want to keep the said premises and want to sell the same. It is further alleged in the complaint that respondent-complaint had paid Rs.14.50 Lakhs to the original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth and he had issued possession letter in her favour in the year 2008 as well as possession was also handed over of the said premises to respondent No2. Thereafter, original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth did not execute any documents in favour of respondent No.2, however, frequent request was made by her. Thereafter, original accused No.1-Rajiv Sheth did not execute any documents in favour of respondent No.2, however, frequent request was made by her. It appears from the record that the applicants obtained loan from State Bank of India by mortgaging the said premises. Thereafter, State Bank of India started recovery of unpaid loan amount and respondent No.2 had paid Rs.5.50 Lakhs in installments in the loan amount. Original accused No.1 - Rajiv Sheth did not execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2, therefore, Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2017 was filed before the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge at Vadodara wherein, para 5 of the plaint thereof reads as under :- 5. That, the plaintiffs had time and again asked the defendants to cancel their earlier sale-deed and execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs but the defendants have never executed sale-deed in favour of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also paid Rs.30,000/- to defendant No.1 towards the payment of the stamps purchased for sale-deed. However, after purchasing the stamp, the defendant No.1 never used them for executing the sale-deed and the validity of the stamp was also become over, therefore, the plaintiff No.1 gave back the said stamps and got refund office money from the office of Treasury of Government for Rs.27,000/- only. In the plaint of aforesaid Special Civil Suit, para 8 speaks as under:- 8. Cause of Action:- The initially cause of action for the present suit was aroused when the defendant No.1 was introduce to the plaintiffs and he has shown house No.1 of Sheel Duplex to the Plaintiffs available for sale, the further cause of action aroused when the defendant no. 1 received Rs.14.50 lacs as full consideration by issuing various receipts from 15.11.2007 to 10.02.2008 towards the sale price of house no. 1 and did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the further cause of action aroused on 15.03.2008 when the defendant no. 1 issued allotment letter and possession letter of house no. 1 and handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs, the further cause of action aroused when the defendants no. 1 and did not execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the further cause of action aroused on 15.03.2008 when the defendant no. 1 issued allotment letter and possession letter of house no. 1 and handed over the vacant possession to the plaintiffs, the further cause of action aroused when the defendants no. 1 advertently hide the actual status of the documents and facts knowing that out of good faith and his relation with the common friend, plaintiffs will not verify the documents, the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiffs names were entered into the revenue records of Vadodara Municipal Corporation and a tax bill dated 13.05.2009 was first issued to the plaintiffs for the house no. 1, the further cause of action aroused when defendant no. 1 took Rs.30,000/- from plaintiffs for getting the stamp paper for execution of sale deed but, after six months the stamps were not utilise for the execution of sale deed and was given back to the government who was refunded Rs.27,000/- to the plaintiff, the further cause of action aroused when the defendant no. 1 took this amount of Rs.27,000/- and said that he will purchase stamps and bear the additional cost if any as the delay to execute the deed is attributable to him, the further cause of action aroused when plaintiffs are praying the municipal taxes of the house no. 1 since beginning of the readiness of the house for possession, the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiff received a letter from SBI regarding the repayment of loan taken by defendant no. 1 since beginning of the readiness of the house for possession, the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiff received a letter from SBI regarding the repayment of loan taken by defendant no. 2 & 3, the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiffs tired to convince the defendants to repay the loan or else, the plaintiffs will have to lose the possession but, the defendants did not act, the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiff paid Rs.5,50,000/ on various dates from 20.12.2014 to November 2016 towards the repayment of loan taken by defendant no.2 & 3, the further cause of action aroused when the SBI has stopped the taking monthly installments from the account of plaintiffs in Dec.2016 and informed the plaintiffs that the loan is repaid by the Defendant no.2 and 3 the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiffs contacted defendant no.1 from 2008 and all the defendants (after getting notice of SBI) since December 2014 for execution of sale deed in plaintiffs favour and repayment of the excess payment received by defendant no.2 and 3 towards loan repayment of SBI, the further cause of action aroused when the defendants did not execute the sale deed and repaid the excess amount of Rs.5.50 lacs, the further cause of action aroused when defendant no.2 failed to carry Out specific performance being a professional company secretary and lawyer and creating a situation where plaintiffs were compelled to a Joan taken by them from SBI, the further cause of action aroused when defendant no.1, 2 & 3 are In connivance to cheat plaintiff the further cause of action aroused when the plaintiffs gave a demand notice on 20.01.2017 to the defendants which were received by defendants on 23.01.2017 but the defendants failed to comply the notice of plaintiffs and did not execute the sale deed as well as did not pay the excess amount, and thereafter, daily cause of action for the present suit was aroused. Different prayer was made by the plaintiffs in above suit which reads as under:- 14. Different prayer was made by the plaintiffs in above suit which reads as under:- 14. The plaintiffs most respectfully pray that :- (a) YOUR HONOUR MAY BE PLEASED to direct the defendant no.1 to.3 to execute a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs for, property House No.1, possessed by the plaintiffs, of Sheel Duplex being situated on R.S. No.356, FP, No.59 of T.P.16, admeasuring 155.67 Sq.Mtr., for which the plaintiffs have paid full consideration including cost for stamp to execute the deeds to defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 & 3 have not objected since 2007 when first payment was made. (b) YOUR HONOUR MAY BE PLEASED to declared that, the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the disputed house property well described in para-14(a) and the defendants have no right in the said property. (c) Your Honour May be pleased to permanently restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, managers, directors, assignees, administrators and auction purchasers directly or Indirectly through Its/his servants, agents, managers, directors, assignees, administrators from entering Into the suit property and disposses the plaintiffs from the suit property described in para-14(a) or alienate the suit property to any third party. (d) YOUR HONOUR MAY BE PLEASED to declare the defendant no.2 and 3 are liable to pay Rs.5.50 lacs to the plaintiffs with 18% interest and issue a decree in favour of the plaintiff to recover the said amount from defendant no.2 and 3 or any of their movable and immovable properties, jointly or severally. (e) The present suit is filed due to the default of the defendants, therefore cost of the suit may be awarded from the defendants. (f) YOUR HONOUR MAY BE PLEASED to pass any other and further relief in favour of the plaintiff, that it may deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice. 8. It appears from the documents produced on record that the disputed premises was sold in favour of the applicants in the year 2006. They were owner of the said property in the year 2007. There is nothing placed on record by the respondent No.2 or single iota of evidence showing that the applicants were entered into any agreement for sale of the said property to the complainant. The alleged agreement was between the original accused No.1 - Rajiv Sheth and the complainant. They were owner of the said property in the year 2007. There is nothing placed on record by the respondent No.2 or single iota of evidence showing that the applicants were entered into any agreement for sale of the said property to the complainant. The alleged agreement was between the original accused No.1 - Rajiv Sheth and the complainant. There was no negotiation at all with the present applicants and respondent No.2 original complainant in respect of the property in dispute. From the record, it cannot be said that any conspiracy was planned by the present applicants with the accused No.1. It also appears that after getting home loan from the State Bank of India in the year 2006, the applicants have purchased the property in dispute by registered sale-deed dated 2nd May, 2006 (Annexure “C”) paying consideration partly from State Bank of Indian loan and partly from cheques of ICICI bank and partly by cash. There was some dispute between the accused No.1 and present applicants in respect of the vacating the premises in question and/or paying the loan amount by the applicants. Therefore, loan was received from ICICI Bank for repaying of outstanding home loan of Rs.4,25,000/- from State Bank of India and also additional loan of Rs.50,00,000/-. If we consider the averments made in the Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2017 filed by the complainant before the Civil Court at Vadodara, dispute is pending before Civil Court. A copy of City Survey Record was produced on record, which shows that the said premises is running in the name of the applicants. In the said suit, the complainant has also produced order passed by the Collector, Vadodara for refund of stamp duty which is stated to have been purchased by husband of the complainant. Refund of Rs.27000/- towards stamp duty was made vide order dated 5th March, 2009 by Collector, Vadodara. There were no direct interaction or contract between the applicants and respondent No.2 and her husband in respect of the sale of the property in question by the applicants. It appears that respondent No.2 entered into transaction with a person who is not the owner of the property in question and ultimately the said transaction was cancelled. Hence, impugned complaint was filed against the present applicants and other co-accused. Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2017 was filed by the respondent No.2. It appears that respondent No.2 entered into transaction with a person who is not the owner of the property in question and ultimately the said transaction was cancelled. Hence, impugned complaint was filed against the present applicants and other co-accused. Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2017 was filed by the respondent No.2. Original Accused No.1- Rajiv Sheth is one of the defendant on behalf of Yash Developers. In the prayer clause, in para 14, plaintiffs have requested to direct the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs for property House No.1, possessed by the plaintiffs, in Sheel Duplex being situated on R.S. No.356, F.P.No.59 of T.P.16, admeasuring 155.67 sq. mtrs. for which the plaintiffs have paid full consideration including cost for stamp to execute deeds to defendant No.1 and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have no objection since 2007, when first payment was made. From the record, there is no entrustment of valuable property by the respondent No.2 to the present applicants and ingredients of Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC are not attracted from the facts of the present case, as there is no agreement to sale of the premises in question entered into between the applicants and respondent No.2. The decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2019) 14 SCC 350 which is held as under :- Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on ground that allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If ingredients of offence alleged against accused are prima facie made out in complaint, criminal proceedings not to be interdicted. 9. The Court has relied upon the decision of Arjanbhai Bhagabhai Danger Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2017 (O) AIJEL-HC-237173 wherein, it is held as under :- “There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of entrustment. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender practices fraudulent or dishonest to induce with another person to deliver the property. In such situation, both the offences cannot coexist simultaneously.” 10. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender practices fraudulent or dishonest to induce with another person to deliver the property. In such situation, both the offences cannot coexist simultaneously.” 10. Complainant had tried to convert a civil dispute in criminal prosecution. Therefore, the impugned complaint was quashed by this Court. This Court has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and another Vs. Sudha Seetharam and another reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739 wherein it is held that:- “The private complaint was filed six years after alleged transaction and three years after filing of suit. High Court without quashing criminal proceedings stayed it till civil suit was decided. Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to quash the complaint filed under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of IPC”. 11. This Court has examined the issue whether the dispute is essentially civil in nature which has been given colour of criminal offence. From the record and the averments made in the complaint, the criminal offence is not made out from the bare reading of the complaint and continuation of criminal proceedings is abused process of Court. Recently, the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Kapil Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Sanjay Sharma and Ors. reported in AIR 2021 SC 1241 wherein, it has observed that subsequent FIR is an abuse of process of law and/or the same has been lodged only to harass the accused, the same can be quashed in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution or in exercise of powers under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. In the present case, the respondent No.2 had filed civil suit before the Civil Court at Vadodara with a prayer to direct the defendants including the present applicants to execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs and same Civil Suit is pending before the Civil Court. The premise in question was purchased by the present applicants since 2006 and they are owner of the said premise since 2007. There was no agreement or contract with the present applicants and respondent No.2 in respect of the said premises. The premise in question was purchased by the present applicants since 2006 and they are owner of the said premise since 2007. There was no agreement or contract with the present applicants and respondent No.2 in respect of the said premises. Respondent No.2 came into contact with accused No.1 namely Rajiv Sheth who showed bungalow No.1 i.e. premise in question stating that by registered documents of 2006, he has sold the said premises to the present applicants and they did not want to keep the said premises and want to sell the same. Respondent No.2 - original complainant has paid Rs.14.50 Lakhs to original accused No.1 - Rajiv Sheth and possession was handed over to her in the year 2008 of the said premises. Sale-deed was not executed as per the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant in her favour by the accused No.1 however, frequent request was made. Loan was availed by the present applicants from State Bank of India by mortgaging the said premises and State Bank of India had started recovery proceedings and the complainant has paid Rs.5.50 Lakhs to the bank by way of installments, however, sale deed was not executed. Thereafter, Special Civil Suit No. 30 of 2017 was field by the respondent No.2 before the Civil Court, Vadodara which is pending. ICICI Bank also issued notice of recovery in the name of applicant No.1 for due amount. Initially no action was taken by the Police Officer in connection with the complaint made by respondent No.2 before the Gotri Police Station on 7th April, 2017. But, respondent No.2 approached this Court by preferring Special Criminal Application No. 650 of 2018, wherein, this Court was pleased to direct the police authority to register complaint in case if any cognizable offence is made out against the persons named in the complaint. So far the applicants are concerned, there is no substance as alleged in the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2. If the averments made in the complaint is read on its face value, it does not disclose the ingredients to constitute the offence under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the respondent No.2, however, the dispute is essentially civil in nature which has been given colour of criminal offence. Complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the present applicants is abuse of process of law. An attempt has been made by the respondent No.2, however, the dispute is essentially civil in nature which has been given colour of criminal offence. Complaint filed by the respondent No.2 against the present applicants is abuse of process of law. Judgement relied upon by learned APP for the respondent -State would not helpful to the case of the prosecution. 13. For the above reasons, this petition is allowed. Impugned complaint i.e. I-CR No. 38 of 2018 registered with Gotri Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B and 114 of IPC is hereby quashed and set aside qua the present applicants. However, it is clarified that no opinion has been expressed on the merits of the pending Civil Suit filed by the respondent No.2 for executing sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Pending civil suit would be disposed of in accordance with law.