JUDGMENT : 1. To what extent the “process of law” could be ‘abused’ that the criminal proceedings ex-facie became vexatious and oppressive and facts of the present case are glaring example of it. It is a legal battle among advocates of a good standing at District Court, Kanpur. Both the applicant/accused as well as opposite party No.2/complainant are advocates. The facts further unfolds that the Lawyers’ Association, Kanpur Nagar through its Secretary filed a civil suit bearing No. RS/000/712/216 against some advocates and private persons including one Smt. Renu Nigam to declare an agreement to sale dated 26.03.2008 being void ab initio on the ground being fraud. The said suit is still pending. The applicant No.1 was an advocate for the Association, however, on being certain dispute, he was later on discharged. An F.I.R. was lodged by one advocate on somewhat similar facts wherein opposite party No.2/complainant herein was also an accused. The further proceedings thereof are not on record. 2. Further facts are that the opposite party No.2 posted a letter dated 05.09.2019 by a speed post addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar that his neighbour one Renu Nigam in connivance with other persons has filed certain documents in the above referred suit, therefore, inquiry be conducted and criminal action be taken against her. No further proceedings on the said application are placed on record except Renu Nigam submitted duly sworn affidavit dated 10.12.2019 addressed to the A.D.G., Kanpur that the applicant No.1 herein had committed forgery and submitted documents in the above referred suit without her consent. Similarly Renu Nigam also filed an affidavit somewhat on similar averments/allegations duly sworn on 24.02.2021 in the civil suit. There is nothing on record how the opposite party No.2 got possession of the said affidavit submitted before A.D.G., Kanpur and on basis of said affidavit, the present F.I.R. dated 30.12.2020 was lodged against applicant No.1 and Renu Nigam for committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B I.P.C. alleging that the applicant No.1 and Renu Nigam hatched conspiracy and prepared forged document in order to grab the property in question. 3. The allegations made by Renu Nigam which are relied upon by the complainant/opposite party No.2 are still subject matter of the suit and only on basis of said document, the F.I.R. was lodged. 3. The allegations made by Renu Nigam which are relied upon by the complainant/opposite party No.2 are still subject matter of the suit and only on basis of said document, the F.I.R. was lodged. The police machinery investigated the case and came to a conclusion that a case was made out against applicant No.1 for committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 384 I.P.C., and no evidence was found against Renu Nigam and therefore she was exonerated. However, the allegations were found to be true against one other advocate (applicant No.2) for committing the said offences, accordingly, charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. 4. In these circumstances, the applicants are before this Court challenging the F.I.R., charge sheet, summoning order and entire proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 0356 of 2020 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 384 I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, District- Kanpur Nagar. 5. Sri Vishnu Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants has vehemently placed the case of the applicants that civil dispute has been given a dark and bright colour of a criminal offence. The opposite party No.2 has already been made an accused for committing forgery and with malafide intention, the applicant No.1 was discharged from being advocate for the Association in the above referred suit. Initially Renu Nigam was not even a party to the suit but later on by handwriting on plaint she was made party. Renu Nigam has submitted an affidavit which still has to be scrutinized and if necessary subjected to cross examination during the suit proceedings however only on basis of the said document, an F.I.R. was lodged and unfair investigation was conducted and despite no material to support the allegations, a charge sheet was filed against the present applicants. A document which still has to be declared being forged, the criminal proceedings have pre-determined it to be a forged document and in the present case, no forgery or cheating was committed. Consequently, no offence under Section 384 Cr.P.C. can be made out as there was no dishonestly or inducement to deliver any valuable property. The elements of conspiracy are also completely absent. The proceedings are malacious and the ingredients of the offence are prima-facie not made out, therefore, the prayers of this application be allowed. 6. Consequently, no offence under Section 384 Cr.P.C. can be made out as there was no dishonestly or inducement to deliver any valuable property. The elements of conspiracy are also completely absent. The proceedings are malacious and the ingredients of the offence are prima-facie not made out, therefore, the prayers of this application be allowed. 6. Per contra, Sri Chandan Agarwal, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vipul Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party No.2/complainant have supported the investigation that the applicants being committed cheating and forgery and thus induced to deliver valuable security, therefore, the offences of cheating, forgery and extortion are prima-facie made out. Learned counsel further submitted that since the prima-facie case was made out, therefore, the circumstance does not warrant any interference under inherent jurisdiction. 7. The law in regard to inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is discussed hereinafter :- “Inherent Power of the High Court under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 :- (I) “Inherent Power” of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., an extraordinary power is with purpose and object of advancement of justice, which is to be exercised “to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C.”, or “to prevent abuse of process of any Court”, or “to secure ends of justice”, making arena of the power very wide, yet it is to be exercised sparingly, with great care and with circumspection, that too in the rarest of rare case. (II) It is no more res integra that exercise of inherent power could be invoked to even quash a criminal proceeding/First Information Report/complaint/chargesheet, but only when allegation made therein does not constitute ingredients of the offence/offences and/or are frivolous and vexatious on their face, without looking into defence evidence, however such power should not be exercised to stifle or cause sudden death of any legitimate prosecution. Inherent power does not empower the High Court to assume role of a trial court and to embark upon an enquiry as to reliability of evidence and sustainability of accusation, specifically in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy. Similarly quashing of criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. at initial stage is nothing but scuttling a full fledged trial. Similarly quashing of criminal proceedings by assessing the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. at initial stage is nothing but scuttling a full fledged trial. (III) There can not be any straight jacket formula for regulating the inherent power of this Court, however the Supreme Court has summarised and illustrated some categories in which this power could be exercised in catena of judgments. Some of them are State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd Vs Mohd Sharaful Haque: (2005) 1 SCC 122 , Ahmed Ali Quarashi and Anr Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh : 2020 SCC Online SC 107, Joseph Salvaraja A v. State of Gujarat (2011) 7 SCC 59 , Sushil Sethi and another Vs The State of Arunachal Pradesh and others (2020) 3 SCC, 240, Priti Saraf and Anr Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr : 2021 SCC Online SC 206. Some categories/ circumstances as illustrations but not exhaustive are : allegations made in FIR/ complaint, if are taken at their face value and accepted do not prima facie constitute any offence or are so absurd and inherently improbable to make out any case or no cognizable offence is disclosed against the accused, criminal proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive and with a view to spite the accused due to private and personal grudge, or where there is a specific legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or in the concerned Act to the institution and continuance of the proceedings or when dispute between the parties constitute only a civil wrong and not a criminal wrong, further Courts would not permit a person to be harassed although no case for taking cognizance of the offence has been made out. (IV) In Sau. (IV) In Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra : (2019) 14 SCC 350 , the Apex Court has laid emphasis on the principles laid down in two of its previous judgments namely, State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa : 2015 (3) SCC 424 and Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors.: (2006)6 SCC 736 and held that quashing of criminal proceedings is called for only when the complaint does not disclose any offence, or the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, or oppressive and further clarified that defences available during a trial and facts/ aspects whose establishment during the trial may lead to acquittal cannot form the basis of quashing a criminal complaint. The 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 alleged offence are prima facie made out in the complaint. (V) The Supreme Court in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Versus State of Maharashtra and Others : (2020) 10 SCC 118 , has categorically held that High Court is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the final report/ charge sheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution and even in exceptional cases where High Court is of the opinion that a prima facie case is made out for stay of further investigation, such order has to be with brief reasons, though such orders should not be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. (VI) Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. (see Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 484) (VII) “A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which we have extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the appellants are made out. (see Ramveer Upadhyay & Anr. versus State of U.P. & Anr. 2022 SCC Online SC 484) (VII) “A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which we have extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the appellants are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the complaint are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the appellants. Therefore, we do not know how an FIR was registered and a charge-sheet was also filed.....It is too late in the day to seek support from any precedents, for the proposition that if no offence is made out by a careful reading of the complaint, the complaint deserves to be quashed.” (See, Wyeth Limited & others vs, State of Bihar & another, Criminal Appeal No.1224 of 2022 (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.10730 OF 2018), decided on 11th August, 2022).” (emphasis supplied) 8. In the above-referred facts, submissions and discussion of law, this Court proceeds to consider the rival submissions. 9. Undisputedly, the question of validity of agreement to sale of the property is sub-judiced before the Civil Court wherein contrary stands have been taken by the parties by way of filing an affidavit and the suit is still pending, therefore, at this stage, to arrive at a conclusion that any forgery had taken place for the purpose of execution of sale deed would not be a correct approach. 10. The police machinery have acted only on the basis of an application of complainant and affidavit of Renu Nigam alleging allegations against the applicant No.1 only. A similar affidavit has also been filed in the suit proceedings. The documents are still to be scrutinized before the Civil Court, therefore, at this stage, the police authorities ought to have kept constraint not to proceed with the investigation as there was no evidence that the documents in question were in fact forged and the element of deceit was present. The documents are still to be scrutinized before the Civil Court, therefore, at this stage, the police authorities ought to have kept constraint not to proceed with the investigation as there was no evidence that the documents in question were in fact forged and the element of deceit was present. There is no bar that on the basis of overlapping facts, both civil and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously, however, the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors (2006) 6 SCC 736 has taken a note of growing tendency to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases with the parties to settle the civil dispute and depreciated such criminal prosecution. Earlier also, in G.Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P.and others, (2000) 2 SCC 636 , the Supreme Court has held that if the matter is essentially of civil nature and has been given a cloak of criminal offence, therefore, applying the principles, a High Court can exercise its jurisdiction provided under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In recent judgment of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976, the Supreme Court held that the Court has enumerable circumstances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case any contrast to a civil dispute and further held that such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety. 12. The Court further proceeds to consider whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are prima-facie made out or not. Sections 480, 420 I.P.C. (Cheating and dishonestly induces a person to deliver the property) pre-supposes cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver any property. Such intention would only be satisfied if it is concluded that the ‘sale deed’ is a forged document or executed with fraud. However, the said issue is still pending in the civil suit. Therefore, at this stage, the element of cheating or dishonest cannot be held to be present. Such intention would only be satisfied if it is concluded that the ‘sale deed’ is a forged document or executed with fraud. However, the said issue is still pending in the civil suit. Therefore, at this stage, the element of cheating or dishonest cannot be held to be present. Similarly the allegations of forgery i.e. making of any false document with intent to cause damage to any person or to support any claim or title is also one of the subject matter in the civil proceedings and only on the basis of an affidavit submitted by Renu Nigam who is also a party respondent in the suit and also filed her reply thereto cannot be a basis to initiate criminal proceedings when the documents are still to be scrutinized. The element of intention will only be determined once the document is declared to be forged or declared to be void ab-initio on the ground of fraud. 13. The allegations of extortion are presupposed cheating and forgery, therefore, the same is also not made out at the present stage. The investigating officer has rushed to the conclusion only on the basis of allegations and statement that the document was forged without considering that the civil suit is still pending where such issues are still to be addressed and as such in absence of dishonest intention and that the document was forged, the ingredients of the alleged offence are absent. In this regard, paragraph 46 of Mitesh (supra) is relevant : “46. Recently, this Court in case of Randheer Singh v. The State of U.P., (2021) SCC Online SC 942, has again reiterated the long standing principle that criminal proceedings must not be used as instruments of harassment. The court observed as under:— “33. ….There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above.”” 14. The outcome of the above discussion is that criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants are a glaring example of ‘abuse of process of law’ where a dispute of civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence and further prima facie essential ingredients of alleged offence are not present and therefore, the criminal proceedings itself became vexatious and oppressive. 15. In view of above, the proceedings of Case No. 122095 of 2021 (State vs. Akhilesh Kumar Gupta and another) in Case Crime No. 0356 of 2020 u/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 384 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Kanpur Nagar, pending in the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar are hereby quashed. 16. The application stands allowed.