JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 334 of 2022 refusing to order registration of case against the opposite parties on an application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by the applicant-Ravi Shankar. 3. This matter is being finally decided without issuing notice to the respondent no. 2. 4. The relevant facts in brief are that the applicant/present revisionist had moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against Ashish Kushwaha and two unknown persons with the allegations that Ashish Kushwaha, married the applicant's wife's sister and became his 'saadu bhai' thus has been able to set up friendly relations with him. He lured the revisionist to enter into partnership with him. The accused made him believe that he has been making huge profits by getting tenders in his favour worth Rs. 2,17,00,000/-. He assured him to earn a good amount of money if he participated in his business venture; the applicant/revisionist could not detect his dishonest and fraudulent intention initially and therefore, he invested a total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-on different dates, however, later on, he came to know that all the tenders and quotations were false and fabricated; he asked the applicant/revisionist to meet him at a hotel in Jhansi in this connection; he also called him at a place in Lucknow where he was threatened with his life. On 01.02.2022, Ashish Kushwaha came to his place in his motor car, indulged in name calling and forcibly made him sign some stamp papers and also assaulted the applicant/revisionist. 5. The main contention of the revisionist is that the learned court below wrongly held that the place of occurrence fell within District-Etawah and not within District-Jhansi; that the court below ignored the facts mentioned in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., showing that a big amount of money was grabbed from the revisionist with a dishonest intention; he was, on false pretext, cajoled him to enter into partnership with the respondent no. 2 with an eye on his money; the impugned order has been passed on the basis of conjectures, surmises and being arbitrary should be set aside with the direction to lodge the FIR against the respondent no. 2 with an eye on his money; the impugned order has been passed on the basis of conjectures, surmises and being arbitrary should be set aside with the direction to lodge the FIR against the respondent no. 2 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 452, 323, 504, 506, 406 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. 6. In nutshell, the allegations are that the applicant/revisionist was lured to enter into a business transaction with a dishonest intention and that he has been defrauded of Rs. 15,00,000/-and was assaulted when the applicant/revisionist protested against him. 7. The matter was heard and was dismissed by an order dated 16.08.2022. Against the order of dismissal, the applicant/revisionist has come in revision before this Court. 8. Before I proceed further, it shall be useful to refer to some precedents with regard to nature of dispute, as is before this Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 932 of 2021 (Randheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 02.09.2021, the case before the Supreme Court was that one Arjun Dev and his wife Bela Rani allegedly executed a registered power of attorney of their bhumidhari plot in favour of one Rajan Kumar, who, on the basis of this power of attorney, executed sale deeds in favour of the appellant and his family members and their name was mutated in the revenue records. However, during mutation proceedings, one Ms. Beena Shrivastava unsuccessfully filed an objection before the Nayab Tehsildar. Thereafter, she filed a suit for cancellation of power of attorney but that was dismissed; the order of dismissal was challenged in an appeal before the High Court, which was partly allowed; she went for further remedies by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) but she remained unsuccessful vide orders passed in 2016. The appellant filed civil suit against Beena Shrivastava for injunction which was granted in his favour. The unsuccessful party brought some new persons in picture and a FIR came to be lodged in September 2017, which was challenged before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Article 226, and was disposed of by the High Court with the direction that the petitioners shall not be arrested till submission of Police report, though, the investigation shall go on and shall be brought into logical end. In the above factual matrix of the case, the Supreme Court relied on the judgment in Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand; (2013) 11 SCC 673 . The Apex Court referred to findings given in Paramjeet Batra (supra) in Randheer Singh (supra) as below:- "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." The Hon'ble Apex Court in the same case also referred to observation made in Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another; (2005) 10 SCC 336 , wherein it was observed that as no offence under Sections 420 and 120 IPC was made out and the dispute was of purely of civil nature, hence, the remedy lay before the civil court. The Apex Court further referred to observation made in Robert John D'Souza & Ors. v. Stephen V. Gomes & Anr.; 2015 (9) SCC 96 in Para 31 of Randheer Singh (supra) as below:- "12. As far as the offence of cheating is concerned, the same is defined in Section 415 IPC, for which the punishment is provided under Section 420 IPC. Section 415 reads as under: "415. Cheating.-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'. Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section." Illustrations *** "From the above language of the section, one of the essential ingredients for the offence of cheating is deception, but in the present case, from the contents of the complaint it nowhere reflects that the complainant was deceived or he or anyone else was induced to deliver the property by deception. What was done, was so reflected in the resolutions, and sale deeds. ****** 46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained." 16. In view of the above discussion and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that none of the offences for which the appellants are summoned, is made out from the complaint and material on record. We further find that it is nothing but abuse of process of law on the part of the complainant to implicate the appellants in a criminal case after a period of twelve years of execution of registered sale deeds in question, who is neither party to the sale deeds nor a member of the Society. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the High Court and that of the courts below. Accordingly, the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the appellants in the criminal complaint filed by Respondent 1, in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 IPC, also stands quashed." Eventually, the Apex Court observed that the criminal proceedings were being taken recourse as a weapon of harassment against the purchasers and that the FIR read with chargesheet did not disclose any offence and allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings against the appellant. 9. 9. The Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1285 of 2021 (Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs. State of Karnataka and Others) referred to the judgment of itself rendered in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC India Ltd & Ors. in Para 41 and 42 as below: "41. "..........."14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law." 42. It was also observed:- "13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors….There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged." 10. Now I come back to the facts of this case. From perusal of the application moved under Section 156(3) by the revisionist, it becomes more than obvious that it has been drafted not on the basis of real facts but on the basis of legal advice. This is not disputed that the accused/opposite party Ashish is closely related to the applicant/revisionist and that they entered into business partnership. The 'ikrarnama'/deed of agreement dated 08.10.2021 referred to in the application under Section 156(3), a copy whereof is on record, shows that they have been partners for carrying on business of their firm. It will be useful to reproduce the words in the 'ikrarnama' paper no. The 'ikrarnama'/deed of agreement dated 08.10.2021 referred to in the application under Section 156(3), a copy whereof is on record, shows that they have been partners for carrying on business of their firm. It will be useful to reproduce the words in the 'ikrarnama' paper no. 19A available on record, which is as below:- ^^1- ;g fd mHk; i{k ,d nwljs dks lxs lkढw gksus ds dkj.k lxs fj'rsnkj gS ,oa ?kfu"B ifjfpr gS o nksuks i{k QeZ fueZyk ck;ks QwysDl fQlŒ'khV ,.M QwM QkfeZx QeZ es lk>snkj@ikVZuj vk/ks vk/ks ykHk gkfu ds gSA mDr QeZ bVkok mŒizŒ QeZ bVkok mŒizŒ es gSaA 2- ;g fd izFke i{k fnukad 07-10-2021 dks bVkok ls >kWlh vk;s vkSj iwoZ es gh r; f}rh; i{k lsŒ 4]00]000@& ¼pkj yk[k :i;k½ uxn izkIr djus ds fy, r; frfFk ij >kWlh vk;s vkSj uxn :i;k 4]00]000@& :Œ viuh xkM+h ds vUnj xkM+h laŒ;wŒihŒ 60 ,QMh 8457 ek:fr cystj ds vnaj nksigj ds le; f}rh; i{k ls izkIr fd;sA mDr :i;k izFke i{k us f}rh; i{k ls fnukad 08-10-2021 dks uxn izkIr fd;sA ;g rgjhj vkt fnukad 08-10-2021 dks tth >kWlh es LosPNk ls dh x;h oDr ij dke vkoA^^ 11. There is nothing to suggest that deception was ever practiced on the applicant for execution of this 'ikrarnama' or that any false facts were introduced in that paper to defraud the applicant of his money. There is no material to even faintly suggest that any false document was ever executed or that tenders were false and fabricated. It is not made clear in what manner the papers were false or fabricated. From the application, prima facie, it appears that some dispute arose in course of their business or financial or monetary transactions. There are sufficient indicators to show that dispute, if any, between the two sides is essentially of a civil nature. The application under Section 156(3) has been drafted to give it a criminal colour by using such words as NYk diV] cnuh;rh . Using statutory language is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that there has actually been a deception practiced upon him for siphoning of money from the revisionist with malafide and dishonest intention. It also appears that the stories have been cooked up to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of court's at Jhansi. 12. Using statutory language is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that there has actually been a deception practiced upon him for siphoning of money from the revisionist with malafide and dishonest intention. It also appears that the stories have been cooked up to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of court's at Jhansi. 12. In my view, prima facie, no offence much less under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, are made out and that ingredients of rest of the Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act have been inserted deliberately to confound and to mislead the courts. At the most probably the dispute, if any, between them is of civil nature and the revisionist has unsuccessfully tried to give it a cloak of criminality. Such an attempt must fail. I do not find any illegality, impropriety or irregularity in the impugned order and thus revision is liable to be dismissed. 13. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission.