JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records of the proceedings in Crime No.48 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.) 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.48 of 2021 on the file of the first respondent Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 120 B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A.3 along with his parents conspired and lured the defacto complainant under the guise of selling a property. They entered into a sale agreement, on 24/11/2019, for a sale consideration of Rs.59,000/-. At the time of negotiation, A.1 and A.2, requested the second respondent to arrange for encumbrance certificate and a copy of the documents pertaining to the ownership of the property and that they agreed to reimburse the expenses incurred to get those documents. The loan was sanctioned for a sum of Rs.48,18,000/- from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. After the accused receiving a sum of Rs.39,57,138/- all the accused thwarted the sale by abusing the second respondent and threatened her with dire consequences. Hence a complaint in Crime No.48 of 2021 has been registered, on the file of the first respondent Police, for the offence punishable under Sections 120 B, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Heard Mr.A.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mr.B.Mohan, learned counsel for the second respondent. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire transaction is a civil transaction. Suit for specific performance is also filed by the defacto complainant in O.S.No.643 of 2022, which is pending on the file of the learned District Judge, Coimbatore and A.3 is a student, who is now pursuing his final year of post-graduation in M.S.(Ortho) in Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur and further submitted that he is no way connected to the above transaction. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that having entered into an agreement, the accused have failed to execute the sale agreement. A.3 in fact has prevented the parents while executing the sale deed besides abused. Therefore, opposed this petition. 6. Perused the materials available on record. 7. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that having entered into an agreement, the accused have failed to execute the sale agreement. A.3 in fact has prevented the parents while executing the sale deed besides abused. Therefore, opposed this petition. 6. Perused the materials available on record. 7. Allegation in the First Information Report would indicate that there is a breach of contract between the parties. It is relevant to note that the present petitioner is arrayed as A.3, who is not a signatory to the agreement and not even played any role in executing the agreement. Therefore, merely because some breach in the contract between A.1, A.2 and defacto complainant, criminal liability cannot be fastened as a matter of right on A.3. 8. Admittedly, the suit for specific performance, filed by the defacto complainant which is not disputed by the second respondent. The only allegation against A.3 is that he has prevented the parents not to go to Registrar office. Except that there is no other allegation pressed into service. Therefore, continuing the First Information Report in Crime N0.48 of 2021 against A.3, who is stated to be a student of medicine, is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 9. It is to be noted that while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Courts are normally slow in quashing the complaint or First Information Report, if the allegation prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case against the accused. But at the same time, the Court finds that such allegations are pressed into service only with a malafide intention or the complaint has been filed maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive, such complaint can be quashed at the very inception to prevent an abuse of process of law. 10. In 1992 SUPP (1) SUPREME COURT CASES – 335 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out the following guidelines for quashing the complaint. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS, the Hon'ble Apex Court has set out the following guidelines for quashing the complaint. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 11. With the above parameters, considering the nature of allegation, since it is purely a civil dispute, this Court is inclined to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.48 of 2021, pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore, as far as this petitioner alone is quashed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.