ORDER : 1. The petitioners herein have preferred the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the FIR No.120/2021 registered at the Police Station Jhanwar, Jodhpur City (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:- 3. The respondent No.2 Nirmit Shringi lodged a complaint which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. whereupon, the above-mentioned FIR came to be registered at the Police Station Jhanwar, Jodhpur City (West). It was inter alia alleged in the complaint that the complainant owned a vacant chunk of land in the Village Barod, Tehsil Digod, District Kota near the Bus Stand. The complainant suggested to his father that he should install a water filtration plant on the said land as it would give good return because the water level/table in the area was very high. The complainant’s father searched the online marketing site India Mart for a supplier of machinery and equipments on which, the accused Vinod Bhati and his son Sachin Bhati, proprietor of Rajshri Enterprises, contacted the complainant at his office, located at Jhanwar. After initial discussion, it was decided to visit the site at the Village Barod. After the site had been seen, Vinod Bhati and Sachin Bhati came back to the Jhanwar office of the complainant and informed him that they had another partner named Prafful Jain who was settled in Delhi and had good knowledge of marketing. The complainant was assured that he would be provided good contacts for procuring the machinery to set up the plant. The complainant was taken to Delhi and a meeting was arranged with Prafful Jain who told the complainant that he would secure a franchise of a company like Bisleri for him. The complainant was asked to sign a purchase order and to forward the same through email. Prafful Jain assured that he would ensure that a franchise agreement of Bisleri Company would be awarded to the complainant for the areas of Jodhpur, Udaipur and Pali. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs) so that the franchise agreement could be secured. Accordingly, the complainant’s father procured a personal loan and deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of Shri Prafful Jain through RTGS between 26.09.2014 to 09.10.2014. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs) so that the franchise agreement could be secured. Accordingly, the complainant’s father procured a personal loan and deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in the account of Shri Prafful Jain through RTGS between 26.09.2014 to 09.10.2014. The accused assured that they would send the machines shortly thereafter. However, the franchise agreement was not forthcoming for many months on which, the complainant approached the accused but they did not give any satisfactory reply whereupon, the complainant contacted Shri Garg, a Director in the Bisleri Company and he was shocked to find out that Shri Prafful Jain had cheated many people by giving them the fraudulent allurement of getting franchise agreement for Bisleri company. The complainant thereupon approached Shri Vinod Bhatia and Sachin Bhatia who in turn, arranged a meeting with Prafful Jain. During the course of these discussion, Shri Prafful Jain gave two cheques of Rs.5,00,000/- each to the complainant which were dishonoured upon presentation in the Bank. Thereafter, Vinod and Sachin stole these cheques. The complainant realized this fact after a while on which, he met these two persons who gave an assurance to the complainant that he should not worry and asked them to purchase machinery and equipment from them in which the liability of Shri Prafful Jain would be adjusted. They duped the complainant into returning the two cheques given by Prafful Jain and asked him to buy machinery and equipment, offering to adjust the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (due to be paid by Prafful Jain) in this transaction. The rate of the machinery was settled at sixty-five lac rupees. The complainant was made to part with a sum of Rs.,55,00,000/- (Fifty-five lac rupees) with the adjustment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lac rupees) in the above terms. The complainant took loan and procured machines from the accused which were also sent in bits and pieces. Fabricated bills for facilitating tax evasion, were given to the complainant. All three accused i.e., Vinod, Sachin and Prafful Jain were hands in glove with each other. They did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. When the issues were raised, the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant went to the office of the Prafful Jain in the year 2014 but found the same to be locked. The mail ID was also blocked. They did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. When the issues were raised, the accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant went to the office of the Prafful Jain in the year 2014 but found the same to be locked. The mail ID was also blocked. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post but he could not get reimbursement of his rightful dues. The machinery/equipment provided by the accused were old and used. The complainant alleged that in this manner, the accused committed the offences of criminal breach of trust and fraud/cheating with him. 4. After registration of the said FIR, thorough investigation was conducted by the IO. Statements of the concerned witnesses were recorded. The accused were given notices under Section 91 CrPC and were required to furnish their explanations, which was taken on record. It may be stated here that the complainant’s father Shri Dinesh Shringi filed a separate FIR No.267/2019 against the accused petitioners at the Police Station Devnagar, Jodhpur with almost identical allegations wherein, after thorough investigation, the IO filed a negative final report concluding that the cheques given by the accused to Shri Dinesh Shringi (father of the complainant) were dishonoured and a criminal case No.250/2015 was lodged by the complainant against the accused. The FIR came to be submitted in the year 2019 with clear intention of gaining advantage in the complaint filed under the N.I. Act. A protest petition has been filed by Shri Dinesh Shringi against this negative final report. The petitioners have approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings of the impugned FIR on the ground that the same is malafide and does not disclose necessary ingredients of cognizable offences. Shri Vineet Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Ashok Kumar urged that the entire set of allegations levelled in the impugned FIR is false and fabricated. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would clearly reveal that the same does not disclose necessary ingredients of cognizable offences. A dispute of purely civil nature has been given the colour of offences so as to involve the police for extracting money from the accused petitioners. The allegations levelled in the FIR are totally vague and uncertain. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would clearly reveal that the same does not disclose necessary ingredients of cognizable offences. A dispute of purely civil nature has been given the colour of offences so as to involve the police for extracting money from the accused petitioners. The allegations levelled in the FIR are totally vague and uncertain. The complainant has admitted that the accused Sachin and Vinod supplied machinery to him but the details thereof have neither been set out in the FIR nor has the complainant elaborated the same in his statement. He further pointed out that the entire sequence of events which is the foundation of the FIR was in relation to setting up a water filtration plant on the land of the complainant’s father located at Tehsil Digod, District Kota. In relation to the very same business transactions, the complainant’s father lodged an FIR No.250/2015 against the petitioners wherein a charge-sheet has been filed. Yet another FIR No.267/2019 was lodged by Shri Dinesh Shringi against the petitioner in which a negative final report was filed by the police finding the allegations to be false. In relation to the very same transactions, a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has also been filed by Shri Dinesh Shringi against the accused persons and thus, it is clear that the complainant and his father have misused criminal law by involving the police in a purely civil dispute. He thus, urged that the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri T.R.S. Sodha, counsel representing the complainant opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. They contended that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used very sparingly and normally, investigation of an FIR should not be stalled at the inception unless a grave injustice is being caused. They urged that the accused Vinod and Sachin fraudulently induced the complainant’s father and made him to part with a huge sum to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- (Fifteen lacs rupees) which was transferred into the account of accused Prafful Jain. This amount was extracted from the complainant’s father with a fraudulent assurance that he would be provided a franchise of Bisleri Company. However, no such franchise agreement was arranged for as promised. The cheques given by Shri Prafful Jain were dishonoured upon presentation in the Bank. This amount was extracted from the complainant’s father with a fraudulent assurance that he would be provided a franchise of Bisleri Company. However, no such franchise agreement was arranged for as promised. The cheques given by Shri Prafful Jain were dishonoured upon presentation in the Bank. The accused fraudulently misled the complainant and divested him of the cheques and thereby the complainant was prevented from prosecuting the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Thereafter, yet another fraud was committed with the complainant and he was assured of redemption of losses, if he made further payment by purchasing machinery from the accused. The complainant was made to part with a huge sum of Rs.55,00,000/- (fifty-five lac rupees) which he transferred to the accused Vinod and Sachin. The machinery which was supplied to the complainant was defective, old and used. The complainant tried to approach the accused for raising this issue but they locked the offices. It was thus contended by learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Sodha that the accused petitioners do not deserve indulgence of this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the impugned FIR and the FIR No.250/2015 lodged by Shri Dinesh Shringi, father of the complainant and the case diary. Suffice it to say that bald and unsubstantiated allegations of numerous fraudulent transactions have been made by the complainant in the FIR. However, these allegations are totally bereft of particulars. Neither any date regarding these so-called fraudulent transactions has been mentioned nor any evidence has been provided by the complainant in support thereof to the IO during the course of investigation, which fact is evident from perusal of the case diary. The transactions in question had taken place somewhere in the year 2014/2015. As per the material available on the case diary, Shri Dinesh Shringi, father of the complainant initially gave a notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to Shri Prafful Jain but thereafter, he claims to have returned these cheques to the accused Vinod and Sachin on their assurance to get the dispute settled. However, neither any date nor any details of these events have been provided by the complainant in this highly belated FIR. However, neither any date nor any details of these events have been provided by the complainant in this highly belated FIR. If at all this act of fraud took place with the complainant’s father way back in the year 2014, there was no reason as to why the complainant kept silent for a period of more than seven years before initiating the prosecution. Shri Dinesh Shringi, lodged an FIR No.250/2015 against the accused in which, the allegations are almost identical to the ones which have been set out by Shri Nirmit Shringi S/o Shri Dinesh Shringi in the impugned FIR. Even if the entirety of the allegations as set out in the FIR and the material collected by the IO are considered to be true on the face of record, then also, I am of the firm opinion that the same do not disclose necessary ingredients of cognizable offences warranting investigation thereof by the police. Ex-facie, it is my firm opinion that registration and continued investigation of the impugned FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of process of law because the same discloses a dispute purely of civil nature. Furthermore, after taking into account, the allegations made by Shri Dinesh Shringi in the FIR No.250/2015, apparently, the present FIR is nothing but a second FIR on the same set of allegations. Hence, also, investigation thereof cannot be allowed to continue. As a consequence, the misc. petition deserves acceptance and is hereby allowed. The impugned FIR No. 120/2021 registered at the Police Station Jhanwar, Jodhpur City (West) and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are quashed as the same amount to a gross abuse of process of law. Stay application is also disposed of.