ORDER : 1. By way of this Special Criminal Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”), the petitioner – original accused No.2 seeks quashment of the F.I.R. being C.R. No.11196003220550 of 2022 registered with Manjalpur Police Station, District : Vadodara city on 6th August 2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution, as per the translated version of F.I.R., is as under : “My name is Vijaysinh Dilipsinh Solanki, Age:46 years, occupation: job, residence: 13 B, Khodalnagar society, near Manavdharm Ashram, Vishwamitri road, Manjalpur, Vadodara city. Mobile no.7624014256 I state my complaint in person that I reside at the aforementioned address with my family and I work at E.R.D.A. company, Makarpura. The partner and administrator of Siddhi Vinayak Developers Apurva Patel and partner Bhairvi Apurva Patel had started a bungalow scheme named “Maple villa” behind Billabong school, Vadsar ring road in the year 2017. We had come to know about the said scheme through newspaper. Hence, we had decided to purchase bungalow in the “Maple villa” scheme and therefore went to visit the site. Apurva Dinesh Patel was present at the site office and he explained us the site scheme. After showing us the sample house, Apurva Patel told us that construction will be carried out as per the sample house. It is a scheme of 50 bungalows. The cost of the bungalow in the said scheme was Rs.68,00,000/- (All inclusive, no extra cost) and the construction work will be finished by December, 2020; the possession of the house will be given and the sale deed will be executed. He had given such alluring offer and he had given surety. We believed him and trusted him and booked bungalow no.A-46 in the said scheme. Apurva Patel had given us the booking form of bungalow no.A-46, signed by him. After booking bungalow no.A-46, we made payment of Rs.2,00,001/- as booking amount on 13/11/2017 from my account no.35812783171 of SBI Bank, vide cheque no.103549. We believed him and trusted him and booked bungalow no.A-46 in the said scheme. Apurva Patel had given us the booking form of bungalow no.A-46, signed by him. After booking bungalow no.A-46, we made payment of Rs.2,00,001/- as booking amount on 13/11/2017 from my account no.35812783171 of SBI Bank, vide cheque no.103549. Thereafter, as he demanded money for the said bungalow, we had given the following cheques to Apurva Patel: (1) Three cheques on 21/11/2017, one cheque of I.O.B. Bank for Rs.3,00,000/-, second cheque of SBI Bank for Rs.5,00,000/- and third cheque of I.O.B. bank for Rs.5,00,000 vide cheque no.562662. (2) cheque no.687790 of I.O.B. Bank, Manjalpur branch of my account for Rs.5,00,000/- on 24/11/17 (3) cheque no.400309 of I.O.B. Bank for Rs.7,00,000/- on 11/01/19 (4) cheque no.124034 of S.B.I. Bank for Rs.3,00,000/- on 11/01/19 (5) two cheques on 13/02/19, one cheque of S.B.I. Bank vide cheque no.016345 for Rs.6,00,000/-, second cheque of S.B.I. Bank vide cheque no.124035 for Rs.2,00,000/-. All of these cheques were issued in the name of Siddhi Vinayak Developers of Apurva Patel. All of the aforementioned cheques have been cleared in his account. Thus, we have given the amount of Rs.38,00,000/- to Apurva Patel. After giving him the amount of Rs.38,00,000/-, I had availed the loan of Rs.30,00,000/- from Central Bank of India, Makarpura road branch, vide loan account no.4005872105. The loan amount of Rs.30,00,000/- was transferred by the bank in the account of Siddhi Vinayak Developers of Apurva Patel, on different dates. Thus, we had paid the total amount of Rs.68,00,000/- for the house to Apurva Patel by 13/02/2019. Thereafter on 13/02/2019, Apurva Patel told me, I execute a sale-deed of bungalow No.A-46 in favour of you and you give the remaining payment. But, I told him, the work of house is incomplete yet. To which, Apurva Patel told me, I will complete the remaining work of your bungalow by Holi in March-2019 and you give me cheques of the remaining payment now. Therefore, I gave him cheques of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for the remaining payment of Rs.68,00,000/- on 13/02/2019 and the cheques got cleared into his account of Siddhi Vinayak Developers. Apurva Patel has executed registered sale-deed No.002616 in my favour on 14/02/2019. Therefore, I gave him cheques of Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- for the remaining payment of Rs.68,00,000/- on 13/02/2019 and the cheques got cleared into his account of Siddhi Vinayak Developers. Apurva Patel has executed registered sale-deed No.002616 in my favour on 14/02/2019. Despite Apurva Patel had told me that he would complete the remaining work of the bungalow by March-2019 after he executed the sale-deed in my favour, he did not complete the remaining work of the bungalow till March-2019 and Pranavbhai Mistry, the Supervisor for Apurva Patel gave me a list of remaining work in my bungalow No.A-46 in his handwriting on a letterpad of Siddhi Vinayak Developers on 05/05/2019. Its original copy lies with Apurva Patel. Thereafter, though March-2019 passed, Apurva Patel did not complete the remaining work of my bungalow No.A-46 and kept promising and did not complete the work even after passing of two years. Tired of his promises, I filed a complaint against Apurva Patel vide Application No. CMP / VADODARA / 201130 / 000304 in RERA on 30/11/2020 and after hearing both the parties, RERA passed an order vide Order No. CMP / VADODARA / RA / 211209 / 00041 on 23/03/2022 that, “The respondent (Apurva Patel) to hand over possession of bungalow No.A-46 to the complainant (myself) within 15 days from the receipt of this order. In case of delay in compliance, he shall be liable to pay an interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum for the delayed possession.” Apurva Patel did not give possession of bungalow No.A-46 to me even after such order. Therefore, on 10/05/2022, I filed an application in RERA Execution Department to get the order executed and RERA issued the first notice to Apurva Patel on 29/06/2022 and the second notice on 26/07/2022 to appear before RERA. But, he did not appear. It has been mentioned in the Booking Form that, Rs.68,00,000/-, the value of bungalow No.A-46 includes all the costs of the bungalow. GUJRERA has passed the order to hand over possession of the bungalow without any cost after considering all the evidences. But, he did not appear. It has been mentioned in the Booking Form that, Rs.68,00,000/-, the value of bungalow No.A-46 includes all the costs of the bungalow. GUJRERA has passed the order to hand over possession of the bungalow without any cost after considering all the evidences. Thus, Apurva Dineshbhai Patel, the Administrator (Partner) of Shri Siddhi Vinayak Developers and her Partner Bhairavi W/o Apurva Dineshbhai Patel launched Maple Villa scheme and gave assurance to me that they would make a bungalow like the sample house and complete the work by March-2019 and therefore, keeping trust on respondents Apurva Patel and Bhairavi Patel, I booked bungalow No.A-46 in this scheme for Rs.68,00,000/- and as the work of bungalow No.A-46 was incomplete, respondent Apurva Patel gave me an assurance that he would complete the remaining work within one month and executed a sale-deed of the bungalow in my favour and obtained the remaining amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from me at the time of executing the sale-deed and thereby, recovered the full amount of Rs.68,00,00/- for the bungalow by 16/02/2019 and despite that, Apurva Patel did not complete the pending work of the bungalow within promised time period till March-2019 and did not hand over the possession of bungalow No.A-46 to me within 15 days as per the order of RERA and thereby, committed a cheating with me and his Partner Bhairavi Apurva Patel abetted Apurva Dinesh Patel and therefore, I file a complaint to take legal action against Apurva Dineshbhai Patel, the Administrator (Partner) of Shri Siddhi Vinayak Developers and her Partner Bhairavi W/o. Apurva Dineshbhai Patel both R/o – 51, Samruddhi Bungalows, Vishwamitri Township, Vadodara City and whoever is found out during investigation. My witnesses are my father Dilipsinh Solanki and my wife Krishna Vijay Solanki and any such persons who are found during investigation.” 3. I have heard Mr. Tattvam Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent – State of Gujarat. 4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil in nature and thereby, the impugned F.I.R. is nothing, but a pressurize tool and thus, the same is a sheer abuse of the process of law. Mr. Moxa Thakkar, learned A.P.P. for the respondent – State of Gujarat. 4. Mr. Patel, learned advocate submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil in nature and thereby, the impugned F.I.R. is nothing, but a pressurize tool and thus, the same is a sheer abuse of the process of law. Mr. Patel further submitted that even what is stated in the entire F.I.R. is accepted as its face value, then it would not constitute an offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. Patel next submitted that there is no allegation against the present petitioner whatsoever in nature. However, the present petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in her capacity of merely a partner of the firm namely M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Developers. Mr. Patel further submitted that the present petitioner is not at all involved in day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm and thus, cannot be said to be a responsible person for any offence committed by the firm. 5. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Patel has heavily relied upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sham Sundar vs. State of Haryana reported in 1989 (4) SCC 630 and the judgement of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of State of Vunna Visali vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2001 LawSuit (AP) 490. 6. By making the above submissions, Mr. Patel has prayed this Court to allow the present petition as prayed for. 7. Per contra, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the present petition contending, inter alia, that the prima facie cognizable offence has been disclosed in the impugned F.I.R. and thereby, it requires thorough investigation. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that though at the first look, the dispute appears to be civil in nature, but considering the conduct and the allegations, the same cannot be said to be purely civil in nature. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that merely because some element of civil dispute is involved, the F.I.R. cannot be quashed at the premature stage. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that considering the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the present petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm, who floated a scheme of Bunglows and received huge amount of Rs.68 Lakh from the complainant. Ms. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that considering the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the present petitioner is a partner in the partnership firm, who floated a scheme of Bunglows and received huge amount of Rs.68 Lakh from the complainant. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that thereafter, as per the allegations, the possession of the Bunglow, appears to have not been handed over to the complainant, and for which, even the complainant had to approach the RERA authority. Ms. Thakkar further submitted that even after the order passed by the RERA authority, the same has not been complied with, and therefore, the complainant had to approach for execution of the said order. Thus, the conduct and the intention of the petitioner appears to be not, prima facie, bona fide, and thereby, the same requires investigation by the Investigating Agency. According to Ms. Thakkar, merely the petitioner is a partner and on her bald averments to that effect with regard to non-involvement in the day-today affairs, would not absolve and/or entitle seeking quashing of the F.I.R. on that ground only. According to Ms. Thakkar, it is a matter of investigation whether the petitioner is involved in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm or not, and thereby, the impugned F.I.R. may not be quashed at this stage. 8. By making the above submissions, Ms. Thakkar, learned A.P.P. has prayed this Court to dismiss the present petition. 9. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and have gone through the materials produced on record. No other and further submissions have been canvassed by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, except what are stated hereinabove. 10. Having considered the submissions of the learned advocates and having gone through the materials produced on record, it appears that the complainant has booked a Bunglow in the scheme named “Mapple Villas” floated by M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Developers, in which, the present petitioner is one of the partners. It also appears that the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.68 Lakh to the firm. It further appears that the petitioner has not handed over the possession of the Bunglow and even not completed the work, as promised in the pamphlets and brochures. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the complainant had to even approach the RERA authority. It further appears that the petitioner has not handed over the possession of the Bunglow and even not completed the work, as promised in the pamphlets and brochures. 11. In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the complainant had to even approach the RERA authority. It also appears that even after the order passed by the RERA authority, the possession of the Bunglow with full finished work, as promised, not being handed over. 12. In view of the aforesaid, in my opinion, the conduct of the petitioner appears to be prima facie not genuine. In such circumstances, at this stage, it would be difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that the dispute is purely a civil in nature. In my view, merely because there is some element of civil dispute, it would not be always safe to say that there is no element of any criminality. In my view, when there is a mixed disputes like civil and criminal, in the instant case, there has to be thorough investigation so as to infer or consider the intention of the accused. 13. So far as the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to the petitioner being not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm is concerned, in my view, is nothing, but a statement without any evidence. The petitioner has not produced any material on record like partnership deed, etc., to suggest that the present petitioner is a formal partner or dormant partner. Under such circumstances, without any investigation, it would be very risky proposition to accept the contention of the petitioner that she was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm. Thus, in my considered view, the impugned F.I.R. cannot be quashed at this stage and the same requires investigation. 14. So far as the judgement relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Sham Sunder (supra) is concerned, in the said judgement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the conviction appeal. Whereas the present case is with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that too, whether a particular partner, at the relevant point of time, was actively involved or not is a matter of investigation. Whereas the present case is with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and that too, whether a particular partner, at the relevant point of time, was actively involved or not is a matter of investigation. In absence of any such documentary evidence to suggest that the present petitioner is merely a dormant partner, this Court, while exercising its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., would be slow to quash the proceedings. 15. So far as the judgement relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner in the case of Vunna Visali (supra) is concerned, in the said judgement, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh had quashed the proceedings after the stage of investigation and the chargesheet, and thereby, in my view, the facts of the present case is materially different wherein yet the investigation has not been completed. Thus, the judgement in the case of Vunna Visali (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 16. Keeping in mind the aforesaid peculiar facts, it would be apt to consider some judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law as to when and in which case the quashing is permissible. It would be apt to refer to and rely upon the celebrated decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 17. In a recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR SC 2021 1918, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the detailed guidelines as regards exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the High Courts. In a recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR SC 2021 1918, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the detailed guidelines as regards exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the High Courts. It reads thus : “10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge: (i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; (ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; (iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on; (iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court); (v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; (vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; (vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; (viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C. (ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping; (x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences; (xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice; (xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; (xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court; (xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.” 18. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to and rely upon a recent pronouncement of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagmohan Singh vs. Vimlesh Kumar and others [Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2022 decided on 5th May 2022], wherein the Apex Court has held as under : “At this stage, we are not inclined to look into the correctness of the allegations made in the FIR. Ex-facie, the allegations in the FIR disclose an offence. Whether the persons named in the FIR have committed the offence or not, has to be decided upon trial, in the criminal proceedings. The Court interferes in criminal proceedings, in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., in rare and exceptional cases, to give effect to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the High Court should not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry into whether there is reliable evidence or not. The jurisdiction has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only when such exercise is justified by the specific provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. itself.” 19. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed.