JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rajendra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Surya Prakash Upadhyaya, the learned AGA and Sri Kaushal Kishore, the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has prayed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 bearing No. 01 of 2021, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B, 467 IPC along with order dated 02.09.2021, the summoning order dated 02.9.2021 as well as the order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur whereby a non-bailable warrant has been issued against the applicant. 3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. stating that the complainant had let out his house to Sabhajeet Verma-the deceased husband of the applicant no. 1 and father of the applicant no. 2. The accused persons prepared fake rent receipts and got their Aadhaar Card, PAN card, bank passbook and handicap certificate issued with that address and they filed a suit with intention of taking possession of the complainant's house and they were demanding Rs. 5 lakh from the complainant for entering into a settlement in the suit. 4. In the statement of the informant recorded by the Investigating Officer, he stated that he had let out the house to Late Sabhajeet in the year 2010-11 at Rs. 2,200/-per month rent. After some time he had asked the tenant to vacate the premises but he did not vacate the tenanted house. The complainant had given an application in police station for getting his house vacated and the police had called late Sabhajeet Verma and had made him enter into a settlement dated 05.4.2018, that the house will be vacated by 30.06.2018 but the house was not vacated. Thereafter, Sabhajeet Verma died and whenever he asks the accused persons to vacate the house, they demand Rs. 5 lakh from him. 5. After investigation, the investigating Officer has sumitted a charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 for commission of offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B, 461 IPC. 6. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit opposing the application. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the accused persons have got Aadhaar Card, PAN card etc. 6. The opposite party no. 2 has filed a counter affidavit opposing the application. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the accused persons have got Aadhaar Card, PAN card etc. issued showing their address as the house of the complainant. Undisputedly, the applicants are residing in the house of the opposite party no. 2 as his tenant since the year 2010-11 and while residing in a tenanted premises, the tenant is entitled to use the address as his/ her own and getting government documents issued with the address of the tenanted premises is no offence. A mere mention of the address of a house in any of the aforesaid documents does not establish that the holder of the document is claiming ownership of the house. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has next alleged that the accused persons have prepared forged rent receipts and in support of this contention, he has relied upon the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) South, Court No. 24, Sultanpur in Suit No. 515 of 2018 filed by late Sabhajeet Verma, whereby the application for temporary injunction filed in that suit has been rejected. It is mentioned in the order that the plaintiff had filed rent receipts, which are not on any format and which do not bear any signature of the landlord or the tenant. When there is no signature of any person on the receipts, it cannot be said that the receipts are forged. 9. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 726, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "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. 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. 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 U.P. [ (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. In the present case also, the dispute between the parties is essentially of civil nature and it appears that the F.I.R. has been lodged to give a false colour of criminality to the civil dispute. 11. In 2021 SCC Online SC 873, Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "35. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. 11. In 2021 SCC Online SC 873, Geo Varghese Vs. State of Rajasthan, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "35. The scope and ambit of inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 CrPC or the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, now stands well defined by series of judicial pronouncements. Undoubtedly, every High Court has inherent power to act ex debito justitiae i.e., to do real and substantial justice, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The powers being very wide in itself imposes a solemn duty on the Courts, requiring great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power vested in the Court should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. However, the inherent power or the extra-ordinary power conferred upon the High Court, entitles the said Court to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court, or the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. 36. The following observations made by this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy may be relevant to note at this stage:-- "The whole some power under Section 482 CrPC entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The High Courts have been invested with inherent power, both in civil and criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purposes. A Court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. The Court observed in this case that ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must be administered according to laws made by the legislature." 12. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 had let out his house in the year 2010-11. He wants to get the house vacant by the tenant. However, instead of initiating appropriate civil proceedings for getting the house vacated by the tenant, he had lodged the FIR with the aforesaid object. From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 had let out his house in the year 2010-11. He wants to get the house vacant by the tenant. However, instead of initiating appropriate civil proceedings for getting the house vacated by the tenant, he had lodged the FIR with the aforesaid object. The receipts in question do not bear any signature of any person, there is no question of any signature having been forged by any person. Moreover, since there is no allegation that the receipts were prepared by the applicants, they cannot be prosecuted for the offence of forgery in preparation of receipts. Therefore, no case is made out for prosecution of the applicant. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the continuance of criminal proceedings against the applicants will defeat the ends of justice and it would be in the interest of justice that the proceedings be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the charge sheet dated 12.08.2021 bearing No. 01 of 2021, under Sections 420, 468, 471, 504, 506, 120-B, 467 IPC along with order dated 02.09.2021 as well as the summoning order dated 02.9.2021 as well as non bailable order dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur, are quashed.