ORDER : 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing the FIR bearing CR No.I-125/2016 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad for offences punishable under Sections 447, 506(1), 380, 114 of the IPC and to terminate all the subsequent proceedings in connection with the FIR. 2. Mr. Desai, learned advocate for the applicant has made a prayer for quashing the FIR on the ground that there is no case in the impugned FIR to constitute any offence against the applicant and it is absolutely a civil transaction, where the present applicant and his wife had entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 7.10.2016 with Mr. Amit Doshi and Mrs. Seema Doshi, owner of the shop property, situated at Office no.1, Shri Balaji Complex, Motera, Ahmedabad. The total consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- was paid and before executing the agreement of sale, token amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the applicant by way of cheque and further the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid and on 24.10.2016, the possession agreement was executed between the applicant and vendor of the office. Mr. Desai submits that on 7.11.2016, the applicant had paid maintenance amount and light bill. A public notice was given in local Gujarati newspaper on 26.10.2016 inviting the objections towards issuance of title clearance certificate, while no objection was ever raised by any of the person and therefore, on 29.10.2016, the owner of the property – Mr. Amit Doshi and Mrs. Seema Doshi executed a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant. Mr. Desai submits that it would be now the issue of complainant, whether he is bonafide purchaser and whether he had any right, title or interest on the property. Mr. Desai submits that on 23.11.2016, the Suit for specific performance of the contract was filed before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar being Special Civil Suit no.218 of 2016 against the vendor and the subsequent purchaser who is complainant. 3. The impugned FIR dated 1.12.2016 is under the premise that on 22.11.2016, the applicant was at the office situated at Shri Balaji Complex and at that time, the complainant came to his office along with other persons and started quarreling with the applicant, at that time, by dialing 100, the police was called. Mr. 3. The impugned FIR dated 1.12.2016 is under the premise that on 22.11.2016, the applicant was at the office situated at Shri Balaji Complex and at that time, the complainant came to his office along with other persons and started quarreling with the applicant, at that time, by dialing 100, the police was called. Mr. Desai submits that the dispute was resolved and on the very same day, the applicant had given a complaint to the police officer who had come on the spot. Countering the allegations made in the FIR, Mr. Desai submits that the facts in the FIR do not suggest any illegal act or any criminality. The only fact, as could be culled out, is asking the complainant to leave the office property. 4. Special Civil Suit no.218 of 2016 was filed before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar. As per the record, the police had filed “A” summary on 19.11.2018 stating that the police could not find any corroboration of the allegations of trespass and theft. Therefore, on that ground, “A” summary was filed with a liberty to initiate further proceedings if at all any evidence would be found in future. The record suggests that the learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar has accepted “A” summary with the liberty as prayed for. 5. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP for the respondent–State submits that since “A” summary is filed and when liberty has been granted to the police of further investigation if needed, Mr. Mehta, learned APP submits that such liberty is required to be granted to the police even by order of this Court. 6. Para 232 of the Gujarat Police Manual gives power to the police to file final report when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate and the police station officer or the Investigating Officer would release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. The police station officer will then submit a a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence. The provision reads as under:- “232. Final reports.— (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forward of the accused to a Magistrate the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. The provision reads as under:- “232. Final reports.— (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forward of the accused to a Magistrate the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. (2) The Police Station Officer will then submit a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of an offence on a Police report through the Sub-Divisional Police Officer in the following three classes of cases : (a) Those in which it appears from the Police investigation that no offence has been committed. (b) Those in which it appears from the Police investigation that only a non-cognizable offence has been committed. (c) (i) Those in which there are grounds for believing that an offence has been committed, but in which, in the opinion of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station, there are not sufficient grounds to investigate or there is not sufficient evidence to justify sending any accused for trial, or in which the offender is not known or cannot be arrested and sent for trial. (ii) In cases referred to the Police by a Magistrate, the final report will be sent direct to the Magistrate. (3) The final report should be written up carefully by the officer-in-charge of the Police Station personally and should be accompanied by all the case papers numbered and indexed methodically. If the accused has been released on bail, the Magistrate should be requested to cancel the bail bond. He should also be requested to pass orders regarding the disposal of property attached, unless any of the articles, e.g., blood stained clothes, are required for further use in true but undetected cases. A request should also be made to the Magistrate to classify the case and to issue an appropriate summary of his order, viz. : (i) “A” True, undetected (where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or property or where the accused is known but there is no evidence to justify his being sent up to the Magistrate (for trial). (ii) “B” Maliciously false. (iii) “C” Neither true nor false, e.g., due to mistake of facts or being of a civil nature, (iv) “Non-cognizable” Police investigation reveals commission of only a non-cognizable offence. (4) A Sub-Divisional Officer is not bound to forward a final report to the Magistrate immediately. (ii) “B” Maliciously false. (iii) “C” Neither true nor false, e.g., due to mistake of facts or being of a civil nature, (iv) “Non-cognizable” Police investigation reveals commission of only a non-cognizable offence. (4) A Sub-Divisional Officer is not bound to forward a final report to the Magistrate immediately. He may of his own motion direct further enquiry or he may for special reasons permit a case to remain pending under investigation. (5) When any further investigation is ordered and made subsequent to the submission of the final report the papers should, at each stage upto final disposal, be sent through the Sub-Divisional Officer. In urgent cases, however, the Magistrate may return the papers direct to the investigating officer. (G.R., J.D., No. 5570, dated 26th October 1904) (6) When a final report of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station is returned to him for further investigation or other purpose, the date of the submission of the final report in its last and complete form should be taken as the date of its submission to the Magistrate for the purpose of determining the beginning of the period of 14 days within which a summary of the Magistrate's final order should be sent. (G.R.3.D. No. 5570, dated 26th October 1904) (7) It is not competent to a Magistrate to return investigating officer’s report made to him under Section 173, Criminal Procedure Code, with an order to make a case against the accused and to send it up for trial. If the Magistrate considers that there is a prima facie case against the accused he should take action under Section 204 of the Code. A reference should also be made to instructions contained in sub-rules (2) & (3) of rule 230.” 7. Here in this case, “A” summary report has been filed. The para in manual, thus, provides that where there is no clue whatsoever about the culprits or property or where the accused is known, but there is no evidence to justify him sending upto the Magistrate for trial, then, the case would be considered as “A” summary to state that true or undetected. Sub-para (iv) provides that Sub-Divisional Officer is not bound to forward a final report to the Magistrate immediately. He may of his own motion direct further enquiry or he may for special reasons permit a case to remain pending under investigation. 8. Sub-para (iv) provides that Sub-Divisional Officer is not bound to forward a final report to the Magistrate immediately. He may of his own motion direct further enquiry or he may for special reasons permit a case to remain pending under investigation. 8. Here in this case, the Magistrate has accepted “A” summary, but since the prayer was made by the police to have a liberty to continue with the investigation in case of receiving any evidence in future, the learned Magistrate while accepting “A” summary report granted liberty to the police to investigate the matter if at all any evidence is found in future. 9. Here the case is absolutely a civil dispute. The Suit has been filed before the Civil Court. The allegation which was made in the FIR was of trespassing and theft, when was subsequently informed by the son of the complainant, that laptop and some important documents were not found. However, the police has not found any evidence to commit the applicant for trial. There would not be any further scope of investigation. The dispute would require resolution from the Civil Court. In that circumstances, pendency of the FIR against the applicant or any liberty to the investigating officer for future investigation would keep the criminal machinery glooming on the head of the applicant, where such disputes are required to be resolved wholly by the Civil Court where the evidence would be provided by both the disputing parties. 10. In case of State of Haryana V. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 , the Hon'ble Apex Court formulated as many as seven categories of cases, wherein the extraordinary power under Section 482 could be exercised by the High Court to prevent abuse of process of the court. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:- “8.1. It was clarified that it was not possible to lay down precise and inflexible guidelines or any rigid formula or to give an exhaustive list of circumstances in which such power could be exercised. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case made the following observations:- “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.” 11. Thus, in view of observations and reasons given hereinabove and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are required to be quashed and set aside. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed. The FIR bearing CR no.I-125/2016 registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad and the proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof are quashed and set aside qua the present applicant. Direct service is permitted.