JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Arun Bras D'Sa for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.767/2021 (F) and respondent no.2 in Writ Petition No.234/2022 (F). Heard Mr. Ashwin Bhobe for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.234/2022 (F) and the respondents in Writ Petition No.767/2021 (F). Mr. Nikhil Vaze learned Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the State. 2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waived service. 4. In Criminal Writ Petition No.767/2021 (F), the Petitioner seeks to quash of entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.IPC/84/2021/D on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'D' Court at Panaji in pursuance of FIR No.118/2019 dated 29.04.2019. 5. Similarly, in Criminal Writ Petition No.234/2022 (F), the petitioners seek quashing proceedings in Criminal Case No.IPC/150/2020/B on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 'B' Court at Panaji in pursuance of FIR No.117/2019 dated 29.04.2019 and Charge-sheet bearing No.90/2020. 6. The proceedings in the first petition came to be initiated on the complaint of the petitioners in the second petition. Similarly, the proceedings in the second petition came to be started on the complaint of the Petitioner in the first petition. Accordingly, this is a matter of cross-complaints based on which the authorities have launched prosecution against both the petitioners. 7. From the material on record, it is more than apparent that the parties' disputes are civil. Both the parties have unnecessarily attempted to impart a criminal flavor to their conflicts and involved the prosecution agencies. 8. The complaints arise from an incident that occurred on 19.04.2019 concerning premises no.401, fourth floor, Milroc Lar Menezes, which is admittedly the subject matter of arbitration proceedings between the parties. Both the parties have referred to an award made in such arbitration proceedings. 9. The petitioner no.1 in the second petition and respondent no.3 in the first petition, in his complaint dated 19.04.2019, has himself stated that the case is of civil nature and not of criminal nature and further that the ROC is solely responsible for dealing with all issues and to resolve such complications. The complaint filed by the Petitioner in the first petition and respondent no.2 in the second petition, though slightly better worded, is nothing but an attempt to give a criminal flavor to the predominantly civil disputes. The complaint filed by the Petitioner in the first petition and respondent no.2 in the second petition, though slightly better worded, is nothing but an attempt to give a criminal flavor to the predominantly civil disputes. Learned counsel for the parties have now stated that execution is being resorted to in terms of the provisions of the civil/arbitral law as applicable. 10. Based on the material on record, it is apparent that the disputes between the parties have a predominantly civil flavor. In such a situation, neither party should be permitted to abuse the criminal justice system by filing criminal complaints against each other and expecting the prosecution agencies to investigate and launch a prosecution. The prosecuting agencies must also be circumspect, and avoid interference where conflicts have predominantly a civil flavour. Exaggerations and embellishments are not uncommon in such complaints, and they should not, without anything more, persuade the prosecuting agencies to intervene in predominantly civil conflicts. 11. Therefore, though a case is made out for quashing the two proceedings that are questioned in these petitions, the petitioners must be saddled with substantial costs so that in the future, they do not embark upon such misadventures of attempting to give a criminal flavor to what are essentially and predominantly civil disputes. These are disputes between the two sets of builders who were, earlier, partners. There is history of civil litigations and arbitral proceedings. Such disputes are best settled amicably so that both the parties can move on with their lives and businesses. Even in these proceedings, we requested the parties, through their counsel to explore an amicable settlement. In any case, we think that neither parties were justified in giving their civil conflicts, a criminal flavour. Accordingly, we feel that both the petitioners must pay costs of Rs. 50,000/- each to the Goa State Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today as a condition precedent for quashing the respective proceedings against them. 12. Both the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the respective petitions which read as follows:- In Writ Petition No.767/2021 (F) "a) That this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be pleased to quash and set chargesheet/entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.IPC84/2021/D, on the file of the Ld. 12. Both the petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) of the respective petitions which read as follows:- In Writ Petition No.767/2021 (F) "a) That this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. be pleased to quash and set chargesheet/entire proceedings in Criminal Case No.IPC84/2021/D, on the file of the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class 'D' Court at Panaji, so as to prevent the abuse of the process of court and/or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.'' In Writ Petition No.234/2022 (F) "a) For an order calling for the records and proceedings of criminal case no.IPC/150/2020/B on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class 'B' Court at Panjim and the impugned Chargesheet bearing no.90/2020 be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned Chargesheet and consequently drop the proceedings of criminal case no.IPC/150/2020/B on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class 'B' Court at Panjim.'' 13. The above proceedings and the FIRs or charge sheets on which they were based will also stand quashed. 14. The above reliefs will take effect no sooner than the petitioners pay/deposit costs of Rs. 50,000/- each with the Goa State Legal Services Authority, and not before. 15. The petitioners, on payment of costs, are granted liberty to place on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrates an authenticated copy of this Order along with proof of payment (receipt). Then, based on the same, the learned Judicial Magistrates to pass formal orders disposing of the proceedings before them. 16. The Rule is made absolute in both these petitions in the above terms. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.