JUDGMENT : 1. All these matters involve identical questions on law and facts and arise out of one and the same First Information Report and hence, they are decided by this common judgment. 2. The present applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the impugned First Information Report bearing C.R. No. I – 52 of 2015 dated 17.07.2015 registered with Bavlu Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof. 2.1 The impugned complaint has been filed against four accused persons. Criminal Misc. Application No.16622 of 2015 has been preferred by original accused Nos.1 & 2, who have purchased the subject land for development; whereas, Criminal Misc. Application No.16623 of 2015 and Criminal Misc. Application No.16625 of 2015 have been preferred by original accused Nos.4 & 3, who are the Advocate-cum-Notary and the Licensed Surveyor respectively. 3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 980 situated in Mouje : Daran, Taluka : Kadi, District : Mehsana was, originally, owned and occupied by the family members of respondent No.2 herein, original complainant. The said land was divided into two plots, viz. Plot No.980/1, ad-measuring 7,135 square meters and Plot No.980/2, ad-measuring 6,540 square meters. On 07.02.2008 the respondent No.2-original complainant and his two brothers, who were the owners of the land bearing Survey No.980/1 (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”), executed a registered sale deed in favour of Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel. In pursuance thereof, the possession of the subject land was also handed over to the new owners. 3.1 Original accused Nos.1 and 2 [Applicants In Criminal Misc. Application No.16622 of 2015] are developers of lands. In 2010, the applicants entered into an agreement with some farmers and a Housing Society for the purchase and development of different parcels of lands situated in and around Villages : Laxmanpura, Daran and Kolad, Taluka : Kadi, District : Mehsana. It was agreed upon that the parties would purchase agricultural lands and would, thereafter, apply with the competent authority for getting it converted for Non- Agricultural use. In furtherance thereof, the applicants purchased a parcel of land situated adjacent to the subject land. It was agreed upon that the parties would purchase agricultural lands and would, thereafter, apply with the competent authority for getting it converted for Non- Agricultural use. In furtherance thereof, the applicants purchased a parcel of land situated adjacent to the subject land. As the applicants were developers of land and were desirous to develop a bigger parcel of land, they approached the owners of the subject land with a proposal to purchase the subject land, which was agreed upon by the land owners. Accordingly, on 27.01.2011, a registered sale deed in respect of the subject land was executed in favour of the applicants by the joint owners, i.e. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel. In pursuance thereof, the applicants were handed over actual and physical possession of the subject land. A consequential entry vide Entry No.5170 of 2011 was mutated in the revenue records, which was also certified by the Revenue Department. 3.2 In 2012, the applicants initiated the process for converting the subject land into Non-Agricultural land for developing a residential scheme. By order dated 02.05.2012, the competent authority converted the subject land, which was agricultural land, into Non-Agricultural land. Subsequently, the applicants initiated necessary procedure for sub-plotting the subject land. Before undertaking such exercise, the applicants felt the need to get exact measurements, location and identification of the subject land so as to avoid any disputes in future. Therefore, a licensed Surveyor, [Original accused No.3 in the impugned FIR and the applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.16625 of 2015], was appointed to carry out the task. 3.3 During the process of survey, it was noticed that the location of two plots, i.e. Plot No.980/1 (subject land) and Plot No.980/2, had got inter-changed inasmuch as the subject land, which was supposed to be shown as being located on the Eastern Side of Plot No.980/2, had been shown as being located on the Western Side. In other words, at the place of Plot No.980/1 (subject land), the land bearing Plot No.980/2 was shown. Therefore, by way of application dated 11.04.2013, a joint request was made before the competent authority for carrying out measurements of the subject land as also of the land bearing Plot No.980/2, which was accepted by the authority concerned. After following due procedure, the authority concerned submitted its report and on the basis of such report, appropriate changes were made in the revenue records. After following due procedure, the authority concerned submitted its report and on the basis of such report, appropriate changes were made in the revenue records. Some where between June 2014 to January 2015, about 6 to 7 sub-plots were transferred in favour of third party purchasers. 3.4 It is the case of the applicants that on 03.04.2015 the respondent-complainant attempted to forcibly enter into the subject land by claiming his right of way over the subject land and had demolished a part of the compound wall which had been constructed around the subject land. As the applicants were bona fide purchasers of the subject land, they instituted a suit in Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 2015 before the Civil Court, Kadi seeking a declaration that the original defendant-respondent No.2 herein has no right over the subject land and an injunction that the original defendant-respondent No.2 and others be restrained from entering into the subject land. 3.5 Thereafter, on 17.07.2015, the respondent No.2-original complainant filed the impugned complaint bearing C.R No. I – 52 of 2015 with Bavlu Police Station against the applicants in all the above matters under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 114 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the same, the present applications have been preferred. 4. Mr. Sudhir Nanavati, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Nanavati & Nanavati for the applicants (In Criminal Misc. Application No.16622 of 2015) submitted that none of the ingredients of the alleged offence are made out against the applicants. The respondent-complainant has filed the impugned complaint only with an intention to arm-twist the applicants to part with a huge sum of money by taking benefit of a clerical error in the sale deed. He submitted that in 2008, by way of registered sale deed dated 07.02.2008, the respondent No.2 had sold the subject land in favour of Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife - Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel and the possession thereof was also handed over to the new purchasers. He submitted that in 2008, by way of registered sale deed dated 07.02.2008, the respondent No.2 had sold the subject land in favour of Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife - Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel and the possession thereof was also handed over to the new purchasers. If the respondent No.2 was really aggrieved by the description of land, which is the subject matter of impugned complaint, then he ought to have challenged the sale deed dated 07.02.2008; however, no such steps were taken by respondent No.2 at any point of time and it was only in July 2015, i.e. after a period of more than seven years, the respondent No.2 realized that allegedly fraud has been committed as regards the subject land. The respondent No.2 has failed to give any explanation for the above delay in filing the impugned complaint. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati contended that the impugned complaint came to be filed in July 2015 wherein, the respondent No.2 alleged that the applicants, in connivance with the Surveyor (original accused No.4) and the Notary Public (original accused No.3), wrongfully altered the revenue records of the subject land to their advantage. He submitted that the applicants are developers of land and as they were desirous to launch a residential plotting scheme over the subject land, they undertook the exercise to get the plots of land measured by the competent authority. It was pointed out that on the joint request of the applicants and other landholders, the competent authority carried out measurements of the subject land, as also of the adjoining land bearing Plot No.980/2 and submitted its report. On the basis of such report, necessary changes were made in the revenue records. It was submitted that the interchange in the description of subject land had come to the fore during the exercise of survey that was undertaken by the competent authority. Therefore, none of the ingredients of the offence alleged are made out against the applicants. 4.2 Learned Senior Advocate further contended that the applicants have also instituted a civil suit in respect of the subject land, which is pending adjudication. The respondent No.2 could agitate his rights before the civil Court. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned complaint is a clear abuse and misuse of the process of law and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. The respondent No.2 could agitate his rights before the civil Court. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned complaint is a clear abuse and misuse of the process of law and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned advocates appearing for the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application Nos.16623 of 2015 and 16625 of 2015 adopted the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Nanavati and prayed to allow the present applications. 6. Mr. P.S. Chandra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent-complainant, submitted that the applicants, in connivance with each other, had forged the signatures of the respondent-complainant and his family members and had fabricated documents in respect of the subject land with the intention to derive undue monetary gain. It was contended that as the subject land is situated on a prime location and its market value is very high, the applicants, being developers of lands, had an eye over it. Therefore, they forged the signatures and fabricated documents so that they could execute construction activity over the subject land. It was, accordingly, urged that no discretion may be exercised in favour of the applicants. 6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Chandra placed reliance upon a recent decision of the Apex Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.330 of 2021 dated 13.04.2021 in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others and more particularly, on the following observations “23. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of/ not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: (i) to (xi) .... (xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. (xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure; (xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR;” (xvi) to (xviii) .... 7. Heard learned advocates for the applicants and perused the material on record. Before delving into the merits of the submissions advanced at the Bar, it would be beneficial to high-light certain facts that are undisputed. Originally, the subject land formed a part of the land bearing Survey No.980, which was owned and occupied by the family members of the respondent-complainant. Thereafter, the land bearing Survey No.980 was divided into two parts, i.e. Plot No.980/1, which is the subject land and Plot No.980/2. Insofar as the areas of the aforesaid two plots of lands are concerned, there is no quarrel on the same. As per the revenue records also, the measurements of the two plots of lands are the same and there is no alteration in their measurements, even after the survey that was undertaken by the competent authority on the joint request of the applicants and other lands-holders. The record reveals that the subject land was of the joint ownership of the respondent-complainant and two brothers. The record reveals that the subject land was of the joint ownership of the respondent-complainant and two brothers. On 07.02.2008 the co-owners, including the respondent-complainant, executed a registered sale deed in respect of the subject land (copy of which is produced on record vide Annexure-B) in favour of Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel for consideration. Here, it is required to be noted that in the said registered sale deed, the description of land is mentioned as Plot No.980/1. At no point of time after the execution of the aforesaid sale deed in 2008 and till the filing of the impugned complaint in 2015, the respondent-complainant or any of his brothers had raised any grievance as regards the description of land in the afore-mentioned sale deed or had challenged the sale deed itself before any competent Court of Law. 8. As the applicants were developers of lands, they purchased the subject land from the joint owners - Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel, by way of registered sale deed dated 27.01.2011 (copy of which is produced on record vide Annexure-C). In pursuance thereof, necessary entry was also mutated into the revenue record vide Entry No.5170 of 2011, which was also certified by the competent authority. After execution of the aforesaid sale deed, the applicants were also put in actual physical possession of the subject land. On the application made by the applicants, the competent authority passed the order dated 02.05.2012 by which the subject land came to be converted into Non-Agricultural land. Before initiating the process for dividing the subject land into subplots for residential purpose, the applicants got the subject land measured through the licensed Surveyor. It was during this process that the applicants came to know that the location of the two plots of lands, i.e. Plot No. 980/1 (subject land) and Plot No.980/2, had got inter-changed. In other words, Plot No.980/1 which was supposed to be shown as having been located on the Eastern Side of Plot No.980/2, was, actually, shown as having been located on the Western Side, meaning thereby, that in the place of Plot No.980/1 (subject land), land bearing Plot No.980/2 was shown. 9. In other words, Plot No.980/1 which was supposed to be shown as having been located on the Eastern Side of Plot No.980/2, was, actually, shown as having been located on the Western Side, meaning thereby, that in the place of Plot No.980/1 (subject land), land bearing Plot No.980/2 was shown. 9. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, it is to be noted that in the year 2008, the physical possession of the subject land was handed over by the respondent-complainant and his two brothers to the Predecessor-in-title of the land developers, who are the applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No.16622 of 2015. Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel had sold the subject land to the applicants-land developers, which is ad-measuring 7,135 sq. Metres. There is no dispute as regards the area of subject land sold in favour of the applicants-land developers. In both the sale deeds dated 07.02.2008 and 27.01.2011, the area of subject land is the same. Thus, right from the date of execution of the first sale deed on 07.02.2008 by the original land owners, i.e. the respondent-complainant and his two brothers and when the ownership changed hands through the subsequent registered sale deed dated 27.01.2011, the area of the subject land has remained undisputed; however, the description of the land situated adjacent to the subject land was found to be erroneously mentioned, which wrong the applicants came to know on 08.05.2013 when the survey was carried out at their instance. As per the record, initially, the N.A. permission was granted on 02.05.2012 and the revised N.A. permission was granted on 25.11.2014. 10. It is pertinent to note that ownership of the subject land got transferred in favour of the applicants in the year 2011 when they had purchased it from the joint owners – Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel by way of registered sale deed dated 27.01.2011. Thus, when the impugned complaint came to be filed in 2015, the respondent-complainant was neither the owner nor he had any right over the subject land. In the impugned complaint, it has been alleged by the respondent-complainant that the accused, in connivance with each other, had forged signatures of the owners of the adjacent land bearing Plot No.980/2 and had fabricated documents in respect of the subject land to derive undue benefits. In the impugned complaint, it has been alleged by the respondent-complainant that the accused, in connivance with each other, had forged signatures of the owners of the adjacent land bearing Plot No.980/2 and had fabricated documents in respect of the subject land to derive undue benefits. The allegation of forgery is in the documents that were before the Surveyor (applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No.16625 of 2015). The allegation is that the respondent-complainant and his wife and sons were not present during the land survey and in spite of that their signatures were surreptiously shown on the documents. The respondent-complainant has raised objection to the land survey while the other brothers of the respondent-complainant have not objected to it. The subject land was sold to Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel, the Predecessor-in-title of the applicants. The N.A. permission and the revised N.A. permission issued by the District Development Officer are in place. One of the conditions in the N.A. permission is that the measurement of the N.A. plot of land and the DILR of the District would go for measurement. So, to that condition, what significance the private survey would bear is for the land revenue authority to decide. Civil Suit is pending before the civil Court. The statements recorded of the witnesses during the investigation of the police are contradictory in nature. The land developers have other lands adjacent to the subject land, which is used for development. The respondent-complainant does not say that his land bearing Plot No.980/2 has been usurped or grabbed by the land developers. The respondent-complainant has raised the issue that the subject land is on the western side while his land bearing Plot No.980/2 is on the eastern side. The respondent-complainant has not made Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel, the successive owners of the subject land, as accused in the impugned complaint. 11. It is pertinent to note that the subject land is admeasuring 7,135 sq. Metres while the land bearing Plot No.980/2 is ad-measuring 6,540 sq. Metres. Till date, the areas of the aforesaid two plots of lands have not been questioned. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel, the successive owners of the subject land, as accused in the impugned complaint. 11. It is pertinent to note that the subject land is admeasuring 7,135 sq. Metres while the land bearing Plot No.980/2 is ad-measuring 6,540 sq. Metres. Till date, the areas of the aforesaid two plots of lands have not been questioned. Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 2015 has been filed by the applicants – Pankajbhai Ratilal Bakeri and Jagat Pankajbhai Bakeri, through Power of Attorney – Ashit Natwarlal Somani claiming right of way on the respondent-complainant’s land bearing Plot No.980/2. Mr. Rajendrabhai Narandas Patel and his wife – Mrs. Rekhaben Rajendrabhai Patel had executed a notarised Affidavit on 21.05.2015 to confirm the fact that the subject land is situated on the Eastern Side of the land and that is the land which was actually and physically handed over by them to Pankaj Ratilal Bakeri and Jagat Pankajbhai Bakeri. They have stated that the subject land is situated on the Eastern Side and the physical possession of which was given to the purchasers, i.e. the applicants-land developers. 11.1 In the background facts, it would be beneficial to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572 . In that case, the facts were that the accused had purchased a motor car with her own money in the name of her minor daughter and had the insurance policy transferred in the name of her minor daughter by signing her (minor’s) name and also received compensation for the claims made by her in regard to the two accidents to the car. The claims were true claims and the accused had received the moneys by signing in the claim forms and also in the receipts as the minor. On facts, it was found that neither the accused got any advantage either pecuniary or otherwise by signing the name of the minor in any of the said documents nor the Insurance Company incurred any loss, pecuniary or otherwise, by dealing with the accused in the name of the minor. The Insurance Company would not have acted differently even if the car had stood in the name of the accused and she had made the claims and received the amounts from the Insurance Company in her name. The Insurance Company would not have acted differently even if the car had stood in the name of the accused and she had made the claims and received the amounts from the Insurance Company in her name. On these facts, the question that arose was whether the accused was guilty of offences under Sections 463 and 464 of IPC and it was held thus: “15. Now let us apply the said principles to the facts of the present case. Certainly, Dr. Vimla was guilty of deceit, for though her name was Vimla, she signed in all the relevant papers as Nalini and made the insurance company believe that her name was Nalini, but the said deceit did not either secure to her advantage or cause any non-economic loss or injury to the insurance company. The charge does not disclose any such advantage or injury, nor is there any evidence to prove the same. The fact that Dr. Vimla said that the owner of the car who sold it to her suggested that the taking of the sale of the car in the name of Nalini would be useful for income-tax purposes is not of any relevance in the present case, for one reason, the said owner did not say so in his evidence and for the other, it was not indicated in the charge or in the evidence. In the charge framed, she was alleged to have defrauded the insurance company and the only evidence given was that if it was disclosed that Nalini was a minor, the insurance company might not have paid the money. But as we have pointed out earlier, the entire transaction was that of Dr. Vimla and it was only put through in the name of her made minor daughter for reasons best known to herself. On the evidence as disclosed, neither was she benefited nor the insurance company incurred loss in any sense of the term.” 11.2 Thus, in view of the proposition of law, even if the signatures before the private Surveyor are said to be forged, such document would not disclose that the Surveyor has benefitted or has caused any loss to the respondent-complainant. Any claim of the boundaries and description can be proved before the civil Court while taking into effect the series of sale transactions of land. 12. Any claim of the boundaries and description can be proved before the civil Court while taking into effect the series of sale transactions of land. 12. The record reveals that the applicants had instituted a suit in Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 2015 before the competent Civil Court against the respondent-complainant. In the said suit, the applicants-original plaintiffs have sought declaration that the respondent-complainant has no right over the subject land and have prayed for permanent injunction to the effect that the respondent-complainant and others be restrained from entering into the subject land. Vide Annexure-E, the applicants have produced on record the plaint of Regular Civil Suit No.32 of 2015, which reveals that the suit was filed on 13.04.2015 and the cause of action arose when the respondent-complainant attempted to forcibly enter the subject land on 03.04.2015, which is evident from para-4 of the plaint. The impugned complaint came to be filed on 17.07.2015, i.e. two months after the institution of the aforesaid suit, which shows that the same was filed as a counter-blast to the suit filed by the applicants. Now, since it is reported that the civil suit is pending adjudication, the parties could agitate their rights in respect of the subject land before the civil Court. 13. The applicant-accused in Criminal Misc. Application No.16623 of 2015 was the Advocate-cum-Notary, who had notarized the documents at the relevant time. As regards taking of cognizance against this applicant is concerned, it is well settled that the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence committed by a Notary in exercise or purported exercise of his functions under the Notaries Act, 1952 unless a complaint in writing has been made by an officer authorized by the Central Government or a State Government by general or special order in this behalf in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952. In a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (2) G.L.H. 491 , it has been held that there is a legal bar against taking cognizance of an offence against a Notary unless the requirements of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 are satisfied. In a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ashokbhai Rameshchandra Ghantivala v. State of Gujarat, 2009 (2) G.L.H. 491 , it has been held that there is a legal bar against taking cognizance of an offence against a Notary unless the requirements of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 are satisfied. In the present case also, there is no compliance of the statutory requirement of Section 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 and hence, on this ground alone, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed against the applicant-original accused No.4. 14. In State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Apex Court observed as under :- “8.1. 14. In State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Apex Court observed as under :- “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guide in myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) 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.” 15. Having considered the allegations made in the impugned complaint in the backdrop facts as also the principle laid down in the above decision, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint filed by the respondent-complainant is a clear misuse and abuse of the process of law and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the applications are allowed. The impugned First Information Report bearing C.R. No. I – 52 of 2015 dated 17.07.2015 registered with Bavlu Police Station, Mehsana and all consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.