JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. Applicant-Kamlesh Singh (accused) and Complainant-Ishwar Singh (Opposite Party No. 4) are resident of Mumbai. The matter pertains to properties situated in District Mainpuri, details of which are mentioned in para 8 of present application. 2. The case is further arising out of a registered power of attorney purportedly executed by accused in favour of one, Shiv Ram Mishra in the year 2008. After a period of more than a decade it has now been alleged that applicant was not empowered to execute the said power of attorney and it was a piece of fraud and forgery. 3. It is not in dispute that after execution of power of attorney there were civil proceedings between applicant and Opposite Party No. 4 (Complainant) that a suit for perpetual injunction being Original Suit No. 171 of 2012 (Ishwar Singh Vs. Kamlesh Singh and others) was filed wherein on basis of a compromise, the suit was withdrawn though now it has been contended that referred compromise was entered by a person not empowered to do so. However, it is not in dispute that neither said compromise was challenged nor order to withdraw the suit was challenged. The Complainant has not taken any subsequent action, either civil or criminal, for a decade till he has lodged F.I.R. dated 14.07.2023 against applicant wherein after investigation a charge sheet was filed, which is subject matter of present case, alleging that a fraud was played by applicant with regard to properties referred above as well as power of attorney was also a result of a fraud. 4. In pursuance of above referred F.I.R. investigation was conducted and a charge sheet dated 30.08.2023 was filed in Case Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. wherein Trial Court took cognizance and applicant has been summoned vide order dated 22.09.2023, which is impugned in present application. 5. Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Pranav Tiwari, learned Counsel for applicant, has vehemently urged that even considering the material available before Investigating Officer, the offences referred above are not made out. The Complainant has given a cloak of criminal offence to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature and which has already been settled by way of a compromise and on its basis an earlier suit was withdrawn. The Complainant has given a cloak of criminal offence to a dispute which is essentially of civil nature and which has already been settled by way of a compromise and on its basis an earlier suit was withdrawn. Learned Senior Advocate also added that recently Complainant has filed a fresh suit against applicant on same issue. Learned Senior Advocate further referred that an inquiry was conducted on a complaint of Complainant by a Senior Police Officer wherein it was found that allegations against applicant were of civil nature. Learned Senior Advocate referred ingredients of offences, that they are not made out. 6. Per-contra, Sri Ved Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 4, has vehemently urged that applicant has not only executed a power of attorney, though he was not entitled to do so, but under the garb of power of attorney number of transactions of property situated at District Mainpuri were executed as well. The factum of compromise and withdrawal of earlier suit was not disputed, however, learned counsel has submitted that not only power of attorney was a paper of fraud but compromise itself was a creature of fraud though admittedly compromise or order of withdrawal of civil suit have not been challenged further. Power of attorney was also not challenged before an FIR was lodged after about 15 years. Learned counsel has drawn attention of Court to the statement of Complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C during investigation, which is part of application being Annexure-9, and for reference the same is reproduced hereinafter:- (Emphasis supplied) 7. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Before adverting to rival submissions it would be relevant to refer few paragraphs of a recent judgement passed by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan Vs. State Represented by SHO and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339, as the facts of said case and discussion on law, would be relevant for consideration of present case:- “9. The law with regard to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus: “12. P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings has been succinctly summarized by this Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited1 after considering the earlier precedents. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in the said case, which read thus: “12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234], State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045], State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla [ (1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi [ (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ (2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786], M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh [ (2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19] and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ (2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283]. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] this Court observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8) “It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive step that can be taken by the courts, to curb unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250 CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant. Be that as it may.” 10. The Court has also noted the concern with regard to a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Be that as it may.” 10. The Court has also noted the concern with regard to a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The Court observed that this is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court also recorded that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. The Court, relying on the law laid down by it in the case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. The Court also observed that though no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law. 11. This Court, in the case of Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam has culled out the ingredients to constitute the offence under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, as under: “15. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus: “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.” 16. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as follows: 16.1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him: 16.1.1. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or 16.1.2. The person so induced should be intentionally induced to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and 16.2. In cases covered by 16.1.2. above, the act or omission should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 17. A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating. 18. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus: “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 19. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows: 19.1. A person must commit the offence of cheating under Section 415; and 19.2. The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. 20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420.” 12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station. 13. 20. Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence under Section 420.” 12. A similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Archana Rana v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station. 13. It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses: (i) the deception of any person; (ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and (iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. As referred above, it is not in dispute that power of attorney was executed/ registered on 09.09.2008, i.e., almost about 15 years ago. It is also not in dispute that Complainant has filed an application under Section 33/39 of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code wherein an order was passed in his favour and there was a stay. However, the effect of it, i.e., whether power of attorney could be executed or not, could have been decided by a Civil Court but execution of power of attorney was never challenged. It is not the case of Complainant that he was not aware about power of attorney. It is also not in dispute that a civil suit was filed between parties in the year 2012, which on basis of a compromise, was withdrawn. Execution of compromise has not been disputed though now it has been alleged that it was forgery. There was no challenge at the instance of Complainant either to execution of compromise or withdrawal of suit. It is further not in dispute that recently a civil suit has also been filed by Complainant with regard to property in question. 10. Execution of compromise has not been disputed though now it has been alleged that it was forgery. There was no challenge at the instance of Complainant either to execution of compromise or withdrawal of suit. It is further not in dispute that recently a civil suit has also been filed by Complainant with regard to property in question. 10. In aforesaid background, I find merit in argument of learned Senior Advocate appearing for applicant that even considering the above referred statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the ingredients of above referred offences which are also discussed in A.M. Mohan (Supra) are not made out. There is no element that applicant has dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property as well as since power of attorney has not been challenged for last about 15 years before any Civil Court, only on basis of statement of Complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., offence under Sections 420 and 468 I.P.C. i.e., “cheating” and “forgery” are not even prima facie made out. 11. The contention of learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 4 has no legal substance as bare perusal of statement of Complainant recorded during investigation does not disclose that any offence referred was made out. Power of attorney is alleged to be a piece of forgery and cheating mainly it being irregular. No ingredients of offence such as deception of a person, fraudulently inducing any person to deliver any property and dishonest intention, are present. Similarly ingredients of forgery are also not made out since only allegation is that power of attorney could not be prepared due to a legal impediment and applicant was not empowered to execute it, which would fall short to make out an offence of forgery. 12. The investigation in present case appears to be conducted in a very casual manner, therefore, in this regard, reference of outcome of an inquiry conducted by Police Officer become relevant that it was a purely civil dispute. In this regard, an answer to a question of Investigating Officer given by Complainant also become relevant that: 13. 12. The investigation in present case appears to be conducted in a very casual manner, therefore, in this regard, reference of outcome of an inquiry conducted by Police Officer become relevant that it was a purely civil dispute. In this regard, an answer to a question of Investigating Officer given by Complainant also become relevant that: 13. In above background, Court takes note of observations made by Supreme Court in A.M. Mohan (Supra) that there is a growing tendency to conduct purely civil dispute into criminal cases and further observation that there is an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement and for that the observations made by Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2000) 2 SCC 636 are also relevant. 14. In aforesaid circumstances, I find that it is a fit case where in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the impugned charge-sheet and cognizance and summoning order can be quashed since it is an outcome of investigation which appears to be very casual in nature and as discussed above dispute between parties is of civil in nature, which could not be given a criminal angle, only to harass accused i.e., applicant as well as ingredients of offences levelled are not made out. 15. It would be appropriate to mention following paragraph of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another vs. The State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196 , that in similar circumstances inherent power can be exercised: “6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013) 11 SCC 673 , this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 14 SCC 626 , observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” (Emphasis supplied) 16. In the result, application is allowed. Impugned charge sheet dated 30.08.2023, summoning order dated 22.09.2023 and all further proceedings in Case No. 4206 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 0471 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri, are hereby quashed. 17. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.