ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. R. D. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Ms. Himali Soni, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. S. B. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 and Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned APP appearing for the respondent No.2 – State. 2. By way of present application the applicant herein has prayed for quashing of the complaint being Criminal Case No.53443 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, filed by the respondent No.1 – original complainant and consequential orders including the order dated 3.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class below the said complaint directing to frame the charge against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 441, 415, 420, 463, 470, 506(2) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Though no offence as alleged can be said to be made out against the present applicant for the dispute of purely of civil nature. The dispute has attained finality by order passed by the Joint Charity Commissioner in favour of the applicant by rejecting the application of the complainant. 3. Brief facts arising for determination of the present dispute read thus :- 3.1 One Public Charitable Trust known as ‘Narendra Kelavni Trust’ at Vadodara bearing Registration No.E/1807/Vadodara having its office premises at Shiyabaug Mohallo, Vadodara run a primary school known as ‘Shiabaug Primary School’ in a building constructed before 50 years on a land totally admeasuring about 100 yards (1000 Sq.Fts.). The building has ground plus two floors and about 200 students are studying in the said school. The said school is not grant-in-aid school but all the expenses are borne by the Trust from its own resources and donation. 3.2 On 15.9.2007, Dilipkumar P. Vaghela, the complainant and Sangramsinh P. Chauhan, the applicant No.2 who happens to be close relatives entered into an MoU with the old trustees to be included as new trustees and paid Rs.6,40,000 to the old trustees by contributing equal amount. 3.3 On 17.3.2009, Assistant Charity Commissioner approved the Change Report No.401 of 2007 of including the name of the applicant No.2 and respondent No.1 as newly added trustees. 3.3 On 17.3.2009, Assistant Charity Commissioner approved the Change Report No.401 of 2007 of including the name of the applicant No.2 and respondent No.1 as newly added trustees. 3.4 On 31.1.2011, the complainant the respondent No.1 agreed to retire as trustee upon receiving his share of Rs.3,20,000/- being 50% of the total amount of Rs.6,40,000/- which was paid to the old trustees and signed upon the voucher on receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3.5 On 5.7.2012, the applicant No.2 addressed a letter to collect the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which was sent by Registered A.D. 3.6 On 23.8.2012, the complainant filed impugned private complaint being Inquiry Case NO.161 of 2012 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara wherein the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 6.9.2012 directed Police Inspector of Morva Police Station to investigate and submit a report within 30 days. The Morva Police Station filed a report on 1.12.2012 opining that the dispute being a civil dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner (page-34 and 35). 3.7 On 30.8.2012, the complainant filed an Application No.19 of 2012 under Sections 41A and 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act for removal of applicant no.2 as trustee and for injunction. 3.8 On 19.10.2012, the Joint Charity Commissioner passed an order rejecting the application with direction about restriction of disposal of Trust property without permission. 3.9 On 28.12.2012, the complainant filed Special Civil Application No.17286 of 2012 challenging the order of the Jt. Charity Commissioner before this Court wherein the said petition came to be withdrawn by the applicant herein to file appropriate application before the Jt. Charity Commissioner. 3.10 On 13.9.2015, report of DCB Police Station, Vadodara came to be filed upon the complaint filed by the complainant on 5.3.2015 opining that the dispute in question is a civil dispute and within the jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner. 3.11 On 28.2.2013, the Navapura Police Station, Vadodara opined in the report that the dispute is a civil dispute within jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner referring to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.17286 of 2012. 4. It is stated that the applicants herein are reputed citizens working as trustees of the Trust for welfare of the students. Not only that, there are various educational activities which are undertaken by the applicants herein. 4. It is stated that the applicants herein are reputed citizens working as trustees of the Trust for welfare of the students. Not only that, there are various educational activities which are undertaken by the applicants herein. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that the police authority have reported that no offence as alleged is made out against the applicants herein and that the Jt. Charity Commissioner also rejected the application preferred by the respondent No1 by order dated 19.10.2012, the applicants herein are constrained to approach this Court being aggrieved by the complaint being Criminal Case No.53443 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, filed by the respondent No.1 – original complainant and consequential orders including the order dated 3.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. 5. At the outset, Mr. R. D. Dave, the learned advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that the dispute in question is a purely civil dispute for which the respondent No.1 the original complainant has already preferred an application before the Jt. Charity Commissioner under Sections 41A and 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act which came to be rejected by the Jt. Charity Commissioner by reasoned order dated 19.10.2012. 5.1 Mr. Dave, the learned advocate submitted that three police stations where the complainant had filed complaint against the applicants herein have submitted reports that no offence is made out and that the nature of the dispute between the parties is about administration of the Trust. Mr. Dave, the learned advocate further submitted that inspite of the reports by the police authority submitting that there is no allegation leveled in the impugned complaint involving criminality, the charge cannot be framed against the applicants herein, therefore the said complaint and the consequential orders are required to be quashed and set aside. 5.2 Mr. Dave, the learned advocate submitted that present complaint is similar and identical to that which was raised before the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner. 5.3 Mr. Dave, the learned advocate submitted that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned complaint as referred to above is required to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the complaint in question is not maintainable and there is no criminality involved in the said complaint. 5.4 Mr. Charity Commissioner. 5.3 Mr. Dave, the learned advocate submitted that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned complaint as referred to above is required to be quashed and set aside for the reason that the complaint in question is not maintainable and there is no criminality involved in the said complaint. 5.4 Mr. Dave, the learned advocate submitted that no offence of cheating as alleged by the applicants herein which can clearly be ascertained from the voucher that the respondent No.1 agreed to retire as trustee on receipt of consideration to the extent of 50% i.e. Rs.3,20,000/- which was contributed at the time of entering into MoU and the applicants herein readily agreed to make such payment. Not only that, Rs.2,00,000/- were already paid to the respondent No.1 which was received and acknowledged by the respondent No.1. The rapplicants herein were ready and willing for paying the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and also addressed a letter to the respondent No.1 complainant for the same. For the said reason lodging a private complaint against the applicants herein is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5.5 Relying upon the aforesaid submissions Mr. Dave, the learned advocate submitted that the present application is required to be allowed and the impugned complaint is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. Ms. Himali Soni, the learned advocate appearing for Mr. S. B. Thakkar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 was not in position to controvert the submissions advanced by the learned advocate appearing for the applicants herein. 7. Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned APP appearing for the respondent No.2 – State submitted that the dispute in question could be said to be purely a civil dispute and submitted that appropriate order be passed in the interest of justice. 8. This Court deems it apposite to refer to position of law :- (a) In the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 . Paragraphs 10 to 13 and 17 read thus :- “10. 8. This Court deems it apposite to refer to position of law :- (a) In the case of Rishipal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2014) 7 SCC 215 . Paragraphs 10 to 13 and 17 read thus :- “10. Before we deal with the respective contentions advanced on either side, we deem it appropriate to have thorough look at Section 482 Cr.P.C., which reads: "Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any orders of this Code or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice". A bare perusal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. makes it crystal clear that the object of exercise of power under this section is to prevent abuse of process of Court and to secure ends of justice. There are no hard and fast rules that can be laid down for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, but exercising the same is an exception, but not a rule of law. It is no doubt true that there can be no straight jacket formula nor defined parameters to enable a Court to invoke or exercise its inherent powers. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts have to be very circumspect while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. This Court in Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v Biological E. Ltd and Others 2000 (3) SCC 269 , has discussed at length about the scope and ambit while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and how cautious and careful the approach of the Courts should be. We deem it apt to extract the relevant portion from that judgement, which reads: 1. "Exercise of jurisdiction under inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge sheet quashed is an exception rather than rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution with the lodgement of First Information Report. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes it's own course and the investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes it's own course and the investigation ensures in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and it's undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the Court on a perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint or charge sheet on the fact of it does not constitute or disclose any offence alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise up to the expectation of the people and deal with the situations as is required under the law. Frustrated litigants ought not to be indulged to give vent to their vindictiveness through a legal process and such an investigation ought not to be allowed to be continued since the same is opposed to the concept of justice, which is paramount". 12. This Court in plethora of judgments has laid down the guidelines with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In State of Haryana V/s. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335, this Court has listed the categories of cases when the power under Section 482 can be exercised by the Court. These principles or the guidelines were reiterated by this Court in (1) Central Bureau of Investigation V/s. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 1996 (5) SCC 592; (2) Rajesh Bajaj V/s. State NCT of Delhi 1999 (3) SCC 259 and; (3) Zandu Pharmaceuticals Works Ltd. V/s. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr (2005) 1 SCC 122 . This Court in Zandu Pharmaceuticals Ltd., observed that: - "The power under Section 482 of the Code should be used sparingly and with to prevent abuse of process of Court, but not to stifle legitimate prosecution. There can be no two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed". Also see Om Prakash and Ors. V/s. State of Jharkhand 3012 (12) SCC 72. There can be no two opinions on this, but if it appears to the trained judicial mind that continuation of a prosecution would lead to abuse of process of Court, the power under Section 482 of the Code must be exercised and proceedings must be quashed". Also see Om Prakash and Ors. V/s. State of Jharkhand 3012 (12) SCC 72. - 13.What emerges from the above judgments is that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the tests to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made in the complaint prima facie establish the case. The Courts have to see whether the continuation of the complaint amounts to abuse of process of law and whether continuation of the criminal proceeding results in miscarriage of justice or when the Court comes to a conclusion that quashing these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice, then the Court can exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under the provision, the Courts have to only look at the uncontroverted allegation in the complaint whether prima facie discloses an offence or not, but it should not convert itself to that of a trial Court and dwell into the disputed questions of fact. 17. It is no doubt true that the Courts have to be very careful while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At the same time we should not allow a litigant to file vexatious complaints to otherwise settle their scores by setting the criminal law into motion, which is a pure abuse of process of law and it has to be interdicted at the threshold. A clear reading of the complaint does not make out any offence against the appellant/Branch Manager, much less the offences alleged under Sections 34, 379, 411, 417, 418, 420, 467, 458 and 477 I.P.C. We are of the view that even assuming that the Branch Manager has violated the instructions in the complaint in letter and spirit. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.” 9. It all amounts to negligence in discharging official work at the maximum it can be said that it is dereliction of duty.” 9. Considering the complaint which is duly produced at Annexure-A it is the case of the complainant that the complainant is the trustee and was President of one Public Charitable Trust known as ‘Narendra Kelavni Trust’ at Vadodara bearing Registration No.E/1807/Vadodara, as referred above. Undisputedly the respondent No.1 herein – complainant agreed to retire as trustee on receiving his share of Rs.3,20,000/- being 50% of the total amount of Rs.6,40,000/- which was paid to the old trustees and signed upon the said voucher on receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- on 31.1.2011. The applicants herein addressed a letter to the complainant – respondent No.1 herein on 5.7.2012 to collect the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/- which was addressed to the complainant by Registered Post A.D. 9.1 For the foregoing reasons, it is the case of the complainant that the applicant no.1 committed criminal trespass under Section 463 of the Code in collusion with accused No.2 that they are related to each other and they intended to cheat the complainant and, therefore, the accused no.2 induced the complainant to invest Rs.6,00,000/- and once the investment is taken place the intention is to put into practice and make fake compromise deed to oust the complainant from the Trust. As a result, the complainant has lost Rs.6,00,000/- and running income of Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. For such illegal act the respondent No.1 lodged the complaint in question. 9.2 Considering the aforesaid facts this Court has perused the documents on record. The following emerge for consideration of this Court :- (a) The complaint which has been lodged by the complainant – respondent No.1, it is opined by the concerned police stations by report dated 1.12.2012 pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the respondent No.1 dated 23.8.2012 in Inquiry Case No.161 of 2012 the dispute in question is a civil dispute which is within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioner (pages 34 and 35) as stated above. (b) The complainant filed an Application No.19 of 2012 under Sections 41A and 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act for removal of applicant no.2 as trustee and for injunction dated 30.8.2012 which came to be rejected by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner by order dated 19.10.2012. (b) The complainant filed an Application No.19 of 2012 under Sections 41A and 41D of the Bombay Public Trust Act for removal of applicant no.2 as trustee and for injunction dated 30.8.2012 which came to be rejected by the learned Jt. Charity Commissioner by order dated 19.10.2012. The said order came to be challenged by the respondent No.1 – complainant by filing Special Civil Application No.17286 of 2012 which came to be withdrawn by the complainant on 28.12.2012. (c) The complainant filed a fresh complaint on 5.3.2015 before the DCB Police Station, Vadodara on 13.9.2015 wherein the concerned police authority opined and reported on 5.3.2015 that the dispute is a civil dispute and the same would be within the jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner. On 28.2.2013, the Navapura Police Station, Vadodara also gave a report that the dispute in question was a civil dispute. Further the applicants herein were ready and willing to pay 50% of the total amount as per the agreement between the parties for the reason that the complainant chose to retire as trustee. Mr. Dave, the learned advocate has stated at bar that the remaining amount of Rs.1,20,000/- would be refunded to the complainant. For the foregoing reasons, considering the ratio as referred above and in the facts of the present case, in view of this Court the dispute in question is a civil dispute, the applicants herein therefore are not required to be saddled with the criminal liability. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the complaint being Criminal Case No.53443 of 2015 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara, filed by the respondent No.1 – original complainant and consequential orders including the order dated 3.11.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class are hereby quashed and set aside. The application stands allowed. Consequently the criminal misc. application stands disposed of.