ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge herein is to an order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.2549/2017, whereby the High Court declined to discharge the appellants in Complaint No.451/2017, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and, thus, has upheld the order dated 12.07.2017 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. It was that order which the appellants challenged before the High Court in the above-mentioned Criminal Revision Petition. 3. The appellants are doctors by profession. They are practicing in London (U.K.). They are persons of Indian origin though British citizens. Respondent No.2 is the complainant, who is a close relative of the appellants. Two cheques were statedly given by the appellants to respondent No.2 on 11.01.2016 and 16.01.2016, which were presented allegedly after interpolating the dates and changing the month from January to September. The cheques were dishonoured and consequently, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellants, as noticed earlier, moved an application for their discharge but the said application was declined by the Trial Magistrate and that order has been upheld by the High Court. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and minutely gone through the contents of the complaint filed by respondent No.2. It seems that the cheques were given to respondent No.2 on account of close relationship between the parties for the purpose of assisting him to start a business. There is nothing discernible from the averments that the appellants, who are wellplaced senior doctors in U.K., required any loan from respondent No.2. The averments made in the complaint do not inspire confidence that the cheques were given for the purpose of discharging any debt liability. That being so, we are satisfied that initiation of complaint proceedings are nothing but an abuse of the process of law, and such proceedings are meant to compel the appellants to come to some terms in a related civil dispute. 5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed; the impugned orders dated 12.07.2017, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, as well as the order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the High Court, are hereby set aside. As a necessary corollary, Complaint No.451/2017, filed by respondent No.2, and which is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. As a necessary corollary, Complaint No.451/2017, filed by respondent No.2, and which is pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, and all the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed. 6. Having held so, we may hasten to add that the parties have apparently a civil dispute emanating from an agreement to sell, in terms whereof the appellants were required to execute sale deed(s). Despite repeated efforts made by this Court through mediation or otherwise, the parties have not resolved their disputes and every time they have come with one or the other inconsistent excuse before this Court. All that we will observe is that the multiple factual issues raised on their behalf on every occasion being seriously disputed between them, this Court is not the appropriate forum to resolve such disputes. The parties, if so advised, may pursue their remedy before the Civil Court, if so permissible in law. 7. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the Civil Suit, if filed, which shall be decided by the Courts as per its own merit. 8. Vide order dated 11.12.2021, the appellants were directed to show their bona fide and deposit a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs) with the Registry of this Court which they did. In view of the fact that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been quashed, the Registry is directed to refund that amount to the appellants along with interest, if any, accrued thereon, within one week. 9. The appellants are, however, restrained from creating any encumbrance or third party rights on the land/property in respect to which there is an alleged agreement to sell executed between the parties. Such a restraint order shall be effective for a period of three months to enable respondent No.2 to initiate the Civil Court proceedings, if so advised, and if permissible in law. 10. We may, however, clarify that if the agreement to sell has already been honoured, partly or otherwise, the transaction to that extent shall remain unaffected. 11. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.