ORDER : 1. Since all these three petitions filed under Section 482 of CrPC arise out of same Crime No. 33325034170114 registered at Police Station Jamul, District - Durg under Section 420/34 of IPC, they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the petitioners in CRMP No. 885/2017, respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in CRMP No. 507/2018 and respondent Nos. 5 to 12 in CRMP No. 1375/2018. Also heard Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 507/2018 and for respondent No.4 in CRMP No. 1375/2020, Mr. Prasoon Agrawal and Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375/2020 and for respondent No. 3 in CRMP Nos. 507/2018 & 1375/2020 and Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondents. 3. CRMP No. 885 of 2017 and CRMP No. 507 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioners, who are the officers/employees of the State Bank of India and Borrower respectively for quashing of the F.I.R. registered at P.S. Jamul District – Durg (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 33325034170114 on 25.02.2017 U/s 420/34 of IPC lodged by the complainant - Dr. Animesh Shrivastava, who was one of the guarantor whereas CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner not against any specific order but against the arbitrariness and reckless attitude of the police authorities in not taking any action in respect of the aforesaid FIR registered against the private respondents. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2009, the complainant/respondent No. 3 Dr. Animesh Shrivastava initially stood as one of the guarantors in relation to the Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2009, the complainant/respondent No. 3 Dr. Animesh Shrivastava initially stood as one of the guarantors in relation to the Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 300.00 lakh initially granted in the year 2009 by State Bank of India (for brevity, also referred to hereinafter as “Bank”) through its industrial estate branch, Bhilai to partnership firm M/s Kanishk Incorporates of which Ram Singh and Bhowmick Singh were partners, for the business requirements of said firm who was engaged at that period in wholesale trading/dealership of Gutkha and Pan Masala, against the primary security of current assets of said firm and mortgage of various properties including property of respondent No. 3 as collateral security and guarantee of the persons as detailed in sanction/arrangement letter dated 25.07.2009. The respondent No.3 along with other persons stood as guarantors and mortgagor to the said cash credit facility of Rs. 300.00 Lakh, which has been availed by said firm from the Bank. 5. In the year 2011, vide Bank’s Sanction dated 14/06/2011 the existing Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit has been enhanced from Rs. 300.00 Lakh to Rs. 475.00 Lakh to partnership firm M/s Kanishk Incorporates, on the request dated 03/05/2011 as submitted to the Bank for renewal and enhancement of existing Fund Based working Capital Cash Credit Limit against the primary security of current assets of Firm and collateral securities and guarantee as stipulated in Sanction/Arrangement Letter dated 14/06/2011. The respondent No.3 along with other persons stood as guarantors and mortgagor to the said enhanced facility of Rs. 475.00 Lakh, which has been availed by said firm from the Bank. 6. In July 2012, the order was issued by State Government of Chhattisgarh banning on storage, distribution and sale of Pan Masala/Gutka containing tobacco and nicotine. In view of the said ban, the working and activity of the firm was adversely affected, and consequently the firm was engaged started increasing wholesale trading of Gutkha/Pan Masala (without tobacco). Looking to the chain circumstances, the Bank vide its Sanction/Arrangement dated 08.01.2013 communicated its approval/sanction of renewal cum reduction of the then existing Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit of Rs. Looking to the chain circumstances, the Bank vide its Sanction/Arrangement dated 08.01.2013 communicated its approval/sanction of renewal cum reduction of the then existing Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 475.00 Lakh to the then outstanding level of Rs.388.00 Lakh with gradual reduction in drawing power (DP) so as to reduce the Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit up to Rs. 100.00 Lakh, subject to continuance of existing securities, as per request dated 01.11.2012 of the firm submitted to Bank for renewal and reduction of existing fund based working capital cash credit limit and the same has been dully accepted by borrower, as there was reduction in existing limit and there was no any increase nor change in the credit facility, therefore no any additional/fresh security documents were required, as the earlier security documents were already in force as executed for Fund Based Working Capital Cash Credit Limit of Rs.475 Lakh. 7. The borrower firm M/s Kanishk Incorporates failed to maintain financial discipline and account of the borrower firm was classified as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 08.10.2023. Accordingly, Industrial Estate Branch, Bhilai of Bank through its authorized officer issued the Demand Notice dated 03.03.2014 under Section 13(2) for enforcement of security interest under SARFAESI Act to the borrower Firm, its partners and mortgagors including to Respondent No.3. The amount of Rs. 3,39,61,759.83 as on 28.02.2014 was demanded together with further interest thereon till full payment through that Demand Notice. On 21.02.2014 the revival letter was duly acknowledged by the borrowers and guarantors including the complainant Respondent No. 3 Dr. Animesh Shrivastava. 8. On 13.06.2014, a proposal was submitted by respondent No. 3 Dr.Animesh Shrivastava to the Chief Manager cum authorized officer of the Bank along with partners of borrower firm and other guarantors/mortgagors wherein they submitted that the loan account of M/s Kanishk Incorporates will be settled by 30.09.2014, if the matter is not published in the newspapers and praying for three months further time to repay the entire loan amount by 30.09.2014. The Bank through its authorized officers approached the concerned District Magistrate by filing applications dated 26/02/2016, 11/08/2016 and 09/12/2016 U/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the various secured assets and the orders dated 17/04/2017, 25/10/2016 and 27/02/2017 of the concerned District Magistrate. 9. Dr. The Bank through its authorized officers approached the concerned District Magistrate by filing applications dated 26/02/2016, 11/08/2016 and 09/12/2016 U/S 14 of the SARFAESI Act for taking physical possession of the various secured assets and the orders dated 17/04/2017, 25/10/2016 and 27/02/2017 of the concerned District Magistrate. 9. Dr. Animesh Shrivastava who is one of the guarantor, in his self centric Solomon's wisdom has lodged an FIR at P.S. Jamul on 25.02.2017 bearing Crime No.33325034170114 against the borrower and various officers of the Bank who are public servants U/S 420/34 of I.P.C. alleging that the Bank officers of the Bank in connivance with borrower have allegedly cheated the guarantor respondent no.3 Dr. Animesh Shrivastava. 10. The Respondent No.3 Dr. Animesh Shrivastav along with other Guarantors had filed SA 78/2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur alleging the same issue of Novation of contract which has been dealt with in detail by the DRT vide its final Judgment dated 13.9.2019. 11. The bank has also filed O.A. No. 349/2015 before the DRT which has been allowed vide Judgment dated 13.09.19 recording that the defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay Rs 3,31,57,615.00 together with pendentelite and future interest at 12 % per annum from the date of filing of O.A. 12. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in CRMP No. 885 of 2017 submitted that the Officers of the Bank are protected under the provisions of Section 32(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 according to which no prosecution would lie against the officers of the Bank as secured creditor and the instant F.I.R. on the behest of the guarantor is not maintainable. He further submitted that the registration of the impugned F.I.R. dated 25.02.2017 at P.S. Jamul on the behest of respondent no.3 is nothing but a counter blast and is only to harass the officers of the Bank and wreck personal vengeance in order to bring them under pressure not to further prosecute the proceedings already initiated by the Bank for recovery of the loan. The said F.I.R. has been lodged by Dr. The said F.I.R. has been lodged by Dr. Animesh Shrivastava by which prosecution route was undertaken by him by lodging FIR against individual officers of Bank with the sole intention of instilling fear among the individual authorities for compelling them to concede to request of settlement or to postpone further recovery actions being pursued under SARFAESI Act by authorized officers. He also submitted that the Bank after following the due process by way of giving notices under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, resorted to recovery of dues by sale of mortgaged properties and the properties of not only respondent No.3 but also the properties of another guarantor Smt. Priya Jumnani and the borrowers Bhowmick Singh and Ram Singh have been sold through e-auction and the amount was credited to the loan account. He placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.N. Ojha & Others Vs. Alok Kumar Shrivastava, reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5848 (paras 13, 14 & 16) and Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Others, reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 (para 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31). 13. Mr. Badruddin Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in CRMP No. 507 of 2018, who is borrower, submitted that the registration of FIR on the behest of respondent No.3 is nothing but a counterblast due to the fraud and forgery played by the officials of Bank which lead to a misunderstanding regarding his involvement with these officials as the new agreement was concealed by these officials as they were duty bound to take the consent and signature of the guarantors which they failed due to their oblique motive to save the skin and induce the guarantors through fraud and coercion. The petitioner has not done any act against respondent No.3, therefore, the said act not comes under cheating. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in CRMP No. 885 of 2017 and 507 of 2018 and for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 submitted that the respondent no. The petitioner has not done any act against respondent No.3, therefore, the said act not comes under cheating. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in CRMP No. 885 of 2017 and 507 of 2018 and for the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 submitted that the respondent no. 4 who is a partner of the partnership firm M/s. Kanishk Incorporates in the year 2009 had obtained a loan in the form of Cash Credit Hypothecation of Stocks to the tune of Rs.3 crores from State Bank of India through its Industrial Estate Branch, Bhilai for carrying out the business of wholesale trading of Gutkha and Pan Masala etc. The petitioner along with the other persons stood as a guarantor on behalf of the respondent no.4. The petitioner had cordial relations with the respondent no. 4 as a result of which he stepped in as one of the guarantors for the respondent no.4. Thereafter in the year 2011 the loan limit was enhanced to the tune of Rs.4.75 crore by the bank authorities based on certain documents and declaration made by the respondent no. 4 in relation to the sale of Ghutkha and Pan Masala. It has been specifically declared by the respondent no. 4 that he is only dealing in the sale of "Rajshree Ghutkha"(containing nicotine and tobacco), because the market consumption of the same is on a higher side as a result of which the loan amount may kindly be increased. It is pertinent to mention that in the year 2012 the wholesale trading of Ghutkha and Pan Masala containing tobacco and nicotine was banned. 15. He furthers submits that in the year 2016 the petitioner came to the knowledge that the respondent no.4 in collusion with Bank authorities and officials had novated the contract without the knowledge of the petitioner and without appending the signature of the petitioner on the novated contract. Since there was ban in the year 2012 on the wholesale trading of Ghutkha and Pan Masala containing tobacco and nicotine the respondent no. 4 novated the contract. Neither the petitioner was informed about the same nor the signatures of the petitioner are there in the novated contract. Thereafter the petitioner had lodged the F.I.R. dated 25.02.2017 against the bank authorities and the respondent no.4. 4 novated the contract. Neither the petitioner was informed about the same nor the signatures of the petitioner are there in the novated contract. Thereafter the petitioner had lodged the F.I.R. dated 25.02.2017 against the bank authorities and the respondent no.4. As soon as the F.I.R. was lodged, the accused except the respondent no.4 had approached the Hon'ble High Court for quashment of the F.I.R. and had also obtained the interim relief vide order dated 20.07.2017 passed in Cr.M.P. 885/2017 which is still continuing. Thereafter the petitioner had approached the authorities for carrying out the investigation against the respondent no.4 herein, the police authorities had always given the assurances which were prima facie false because still today no investigation is being carried out against the respondent no.4. 16. In M. N. Ojha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in paras 13, 14 & 16 as under : “13. In our considered view, criminal law has been set in motion by the complainant to harass the bank officers needlessly and to wreak personal vengeance in order to bring them under pressure not to further prosecute the proceedings already initiated by the appellants against the complainant on behalf of the bank. 14. In our considered opinion, the learned SDJM set the criminal law in motion against the appellants without even examining the allegations and averments made in the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant. The learned SDJM took cognizance of the case without considering the allegations on merits. Had the learned SDJM perused the complaint properly he would have realized that the complainant himself had made a mention about the lodging of the FIR for criminal breach of trust and other offences against the respondent-complainant and others. Had he looked into the complaint properly, he would have certainly asked the complainant to furnish the copy of the said FIR. A copy of the legal notice issued on behalf of the respondent- complainant to the appellants was filed along with the complaint and a mention is made about it in the order passed by the learned SDJM. Had the learned SDJM perused the said legal notice, he would have realized that the complainant himself admitted about his execution of agreement of guarantee and other documents unconditionally agreeing to discharge the loan amount in case of failure of the principal borrower to pay the said amount to the bank. Had the learned SDJM perused the said legal notice, he would have realized that the complainant himself admitted about his execution of agreement of guarantee and other documents unconditionally agreeing to discharge the loan amount in case of failure of the principal borrower to pay the said amount to the bank. Had the learned SDJM applied his mind to the facts and circumstances and sequence of events and as well as the documents filed by the complainant himself along with the complaint, surely he would have dismissed the complaint. He would have realized that the complaint was only a counter blast to the FIR lodged by the Bank against the complainant and others with regard to same transaction. This Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. [ (1998)5 SCC 749 held: "28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused." The case on hand is a classic illustration of non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate did not scrutinize even the contents of the complaint, leave aside the material documents available on record. The learned Magistrate truly was a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the appellants. xxx xxx xxx 16. The learned Magistrate did not scrutinize even the contents of the complaint, leave aside the material documents available on record. The learned Magistrate truly was a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the appellants. xxx xxx xxx 16. This is one case where the averments and allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence by the appellants or any one of them. They were merely discharging their duties to realize and recover the amounts due to the bank from the borrower as well as the guarantors. The complaint obviously has been filed as counter blast to the proceedings already initiated by the bank including the first information report lodged by the first appellant against the complainant and the borrower for the offences of cheating and misappropriation. Sequence of events undoubtedly suggests that the criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the appellants and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. It was clearly intended to prevent the public servants from discharging their duties. The criminal law has been set in motion by the learned SDJM by mere asking to do so by the complainant. The High Court almost abdicated its duty in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though the case on hand required its interference in order to prevent abuse of the process by a court subordinate to it. A clear case is made out requiring our interference to secure the ends of justice.” 17. In Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava (supra), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 as under : “27. Regard being had to the aforesaid enunciation of law, it needs to be reiterated that the learned Magistrate has to remain vigilant with regard to the allegations made and the nature of allegations and not to issue directions without proper application of mind. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above law. He has also to bear in mind that sending the matter would be conducive to justice and then he may pass the requisite order. The present is a case where the accused persons are serving in high positions in the bank. We are absolutely conscious that the position does not matter, for nobody is above law. But, the learned Magistrate should take note of the allegations in entirety, the date of incident and whether any cognizable case is remotely made out. It is also to be noted that when a borrower of the financial institution covered under the SARFAESI Act, invokes the jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and also there is a separate procedure under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, an attitude of more care, caution and circumspection has to be adhered to. 28. Issuing a direction stating "as per the application" to lodge an FIR creates a very unhealthy situation in the society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It also encourages the unscrupulous and unprincipled litigants, like the respondent no.3, namely, Prakash Kumar Bajaj, to take adventurous steps with courts to bring the financial institutions on their knees. As the factual exposition would reveal, he had prosecuted the earlier authorities and after the matter is dealt with by the High Court in a writ petition recording a settlement, he does not withdraw the criminal case and waits for some kind of situation where he can take vengeance as if he is the emperor of all he surveys. It is interesting to note that during the tenure of the appellant No.1, who is presently occupying the position of Vice-President, neither the loan was taken, nor the default was made, nor any action under the SARFAESI Act was taken. However, the action under the SARFAESI Act was taken on the second time at the instance of the present appellant No.1. We are only stating about the devilish design of the respondent No.3 to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. We are only stating about the devilish design of the respondent No.3 to harass the appellants with the sole intent to avoid the payment of loan. When a citizen avails a loan from a financial institution, it is his obligation to pay back and not play truant or for that matter play possum. As we have noticed, he has been able to do such adventurous acts as he has the embedded conviction that he will not be taken to task because an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is a simple application to the court for issue of a direction to the investigating agency. We have been apprised that a carbon copy of a document is filed to show the compliance of Section 154(3), indicating it has been sent to the Superintendent of police concerned. 29. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same. 30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. 31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.” 18. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the impugned FIR and the documents appended along with the aforesaid petitions, it is quite evident that the dispute between the parties relates to civil in nature and no case of cheating has been established by the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375 of 2020, who is one of the guarantor. It is not in dispute that the petitioner Bhowmick Singh, who is a partner of the partnership firm M/s. Kanishk Incorporates in the year 2009 had obtained a loan in the form of Cash Credit Hypothecation of Stocks to the tune of Rs.3 crores from State Bank of India through its Industrial Estate Branch, Bhilai for carrying out the business of wholesale trading of Gutkha and Pan Masala etc. and the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 Dr. Animesh Shrivastava along with the other persons stood as a guarantor on behalf of the respondent no.4. and the petitioner in CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 Dr. Animesh Shrivastava along with the other persons stood as a guarantor on behalf of the respondent no.4. Thereafter, in the year 2011 the loan limit was enhanced to the tune of Rs.4.75 crore by the bank authorities based on certain documents and declaration made by the respondent no. 4 in relation to the sale of Ghutkha and Pan Masala, which was later on reduced to Rs.388.00 Lakh with gradual reduction in drawing power (DP) and as the borrower has failed to deposit the said amount, the Bank after following the due process by way of giving notices under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, resorted to recovery of dues by sale of mortgaged properties and the properties of not only Dr. Animesh Shrivastava, who is a guarantor, but also the properties of another guarantor Smt. Priya Jumnani and the borrowers Bhowmick Singh and Ram Singh have been sold through e-auction and the amount was credited to the loan account. The Bank has given loan to the borrower and it has right to recover the same, if the borrower fails to pay the said loan amount, the Bank has right to recover from the guarantors and as such, there is no case of forgery against the petitioners/Bank officials. 19. In my considered view, criminal law has been set in motion by the complainant to harass the Bank officials needlessly and to wreak personal vengeance in order to bring them under pressure not to further prosecute the proceedings already initiated by them against the complainant on behalf of the Bank. 20. This is one case where the averments and allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of any offence by the Bank officials or any one of them. They were merely discharging their duties to realize and recover the amounts due to the bank from the borrower as well as the guarantors. The complaint obviously has been filed as counter blast to the proceedings already initiated by the bank. Sequence of events undoubtedly suggests that the criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the Bank officials and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. It was clearly intended to prevent the public servants from discharging their duties. 21. Sequence of events undoubtedly suggests that the criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the Bank officials and with a view to spite them due to personal grudge. It was clearly intended to prevent the public servants from discharging their duties. 21. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the aforesaid dispute is purely civil in the nature and the litigation is pending before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad and also in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of M.N. Ojha (supra) and Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava (supra), the FIR registered against the petitioners in CRMP No. 885 of 2017, who are the Bank officials and CRMP No. 507 of 2018, who is a partner of the borrower firm under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC does not disclose any commission of the offence. Moreover, it appears to be malicious prosecution of the petitioners by the complainant Dr.Animesh Shrivastava, thus, the aforesaid two petitions are being liable to be allowed. 22. Accordingly, CRMP No. 885 of 2017 and CRMP No. 507 of 2018 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are allowed. The impugned F.I.R. registered at P.S. Jamul District Durg (C.G.) bearing Crime No. 33325034170114 on 25.02.2017 U/s 420/34 of IPC lodged by the complainant - Dr. Animesh Shrivastava and all the consequential proceedings pending against them, if any, are hereby quashed and set aside. 23. Consequently, CRMP No. 1375 of 2020 is rejected. 24. No order as to cost(s).