ORDER : This writ petition is filled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief : “…..to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more in the nature of CERTIORARI and quash the complaint and investigation in Fir No.227 of 2015 dated 1216.12.2015 on the file of Mylavaram Police Station, Krishna District 2nd respondent herein as being unconstitutional, illegal and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order… 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that 3rd respondent has given a complaint on 16.12.2015 to the 2nd respondent police to the effect that he has taken a hand loan of Rs.4 lakhs from the petitioner in the year 2014 on execution of four promissory notes and four blank cheques and that he is demanding him to pay high interest and also insisting him to double the amount and sending his henchmen to the petitioner house to clear the amount. The said complaint has been registered by Mylavaram police Station vide Fir No.227/2015 on 16.12.2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 384 and 506 IPC. As the complaint of the 3rd respondent is false and baseless, and that the petitioner has not committed any offence as per the allegations made in the complaint, filed the present writ petition for quashing the said FIR. 3. This Court vide order dated 09.02.2016 while issuing Rule Nisi, has granted interim stay as prayed for. 4. Heard Sri Vikram Pooserla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, Sri G..S.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the petition. To support his contentions, learned for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Mahmood Ali and others versus State of U.P and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950, wherein the Apex Court held that : e are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. 1, 5 and 7 resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).12. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 6. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 6. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home while denying the allegations made in the petition, would submit that, while the investigation is pending, the accused approached this Court by way of filing WP No.2978 of 2016 i.e., the present writ petition on 09.02.216 and this Court has granted interim stay. He further submits that, in obedience to the interim orders passed by this Court the investigating agency stopped further course of action into the case. Unless and until this Court vacates the orders, further course of action will not be taken. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submit that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the parameters of the law declared by the Apex Court. The contentions contra is untrue and hereby denied. The Apex Court on 28.03.2018 reiterated in a case of SCC Online SC Page 310 that in criminal pending cases cannot be stayed for more than 6 months, extension can be granted only by speaking orders. Thus the criminal petition is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, prayed to vacate the orders passed in WPMP No.3775/2016 in WP No.2978 of 2016. 7. On perusing the material on record, this Court observed that, the 3rd respondent herein has given a complaint on 16.12.2015 to the 2nd respondent police that he has taken a hand loan of Rs.4 lakh from the petitioner in the year 2014 on execution of four promissory notes and four blank cheques. Basing on that, the respondent police has registered a case in Crime NO.227/2015 dated 16.12.2015 for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 384 and 506 IPC. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is well settled as per the law laid down in 2006 (6) SCC 736 that a civil transaction cannot be allowed to be dubbed into a criminal complaint and such complaints are liable to be quashed. 9. 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that it is well settled as per the law laid down in 2006 (6) SCC 736 that a civil transaction cannot be allowed to be dubbed into a criminal complaint and such complaints are liable to be quashed. 9. In a case of State of West Bengal and others versus Swapan Kumar Guha, (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 561, wherein the Apex Court held that The position which emerges from these decisions and the other decisions which are discussed by Brother A.N. Sen is that the condition precedent to the commencement of investigation under section 157 of the Code is that the F.I.R. must disclose, prima facie, that a cognizable offence has been committed. It is wrong to suppose that the police have an unfettered discretion to commence investigation under section 157 of the Code. Their right of inquiry is conditioned by the existence of reason to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and they cannot, reasonably, have reason so to suspect unless the F.I.R., prima facie, discloses the commission of such offence. If that condition is satisfied, the investigation must go on and the rule in Khwaja Nazir Ahmed (supra) will apply. The Court has then no power to stop the investigation, for to do so would be to trench upon the lawful power of the police to investigate into cognizable offences. On the other hand, if the F.I.R. does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court would be justified in quashing the investigation on the basis of the information as laid or received. In my opinion, the legal position is well-settled. The legal position appears to be that if an offence is disclosed, the Court will not normally interfere with an investigation into the case and will permit investigation into the offence alleged to be completed; if, however, the materials do not disclose an offence, no investigation should normally be permitted. The observations of the Judicial Committee and the observations of this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier quoted, make this position abundantly clear. The prepositions enunciated by the Judicial Committee and this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier noted, are based on sound principles of justice. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. The prepositions enunciated by the Judicial Committee and this Court in the various decisions which I have earlier noted, are based on sound principles of justice. Once an offence is disclosed, an investigation into the offence must necessarily follow in the interests of justice. If, however, no offence is disclosed, an investigation cannot be permitted, as any investigation, in the absence of any offence being disclosed, will result in unnecessary harrassment to a party, whose liberty and property may be put to jeopardy for nothing. The liberty and property of any individual are sacred and sacrosanct and the Court zealously guards them and protects them. An investigation is carried on for the purpose of gathering necessary materials for establishing and proving an offence which is disclosed. When an offence is disclosed, a proper investigation in the interest of justice becomes necessary to collect materials for establishing the offence, and for bringing the offender to book. In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the deteriment of the cause of justice and the society at large. Justice requires that a person who commits an offence has to be brought to book and must be punished for the same. If the Court interferes with the proper investigation in a case where an offence has been disclosed, the offence will go unpunished to the serious deteriment of the welfare of the society and the cause of the justice suffers. It is on the basis of this principle that the Court normally does not interfere with the investigation of a case where an offence has been disclosed. The decision on which Mr. Chatterjee has relied are based on this sound principle, and in all these cases, an offence had been disclosed. Relying on the well-settled and sound principle that the Court should not interfere with an investigation into an offence at the stage of investigation and should allow the investigation to be completed, this Court had made the observations in the said decisions which I have earlier quoted reiterating and reaffirming the sound principles of justice. The decisions relied on by Mr. The decisions relied on by Mr. Chatterjee, do not lay down, as it cannot possibly be laid down as a broad proposition of law, that an investigation must necessarily be permitted to continue and will not be prevented by the Court at the stage of investigation even if no offence is disclosed. While adverting to this specific question as to whether an investigation can go on even if no offence is disclosed, the judicial Committee in the case of King Emperor v. Khwaja Nizam Ahmed (supra) and this Court in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab (supra), Jehan Singh v. Delhi Administration (supra), S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari (supra) have clearly laid down that no investigation can be permitted and have made the observations which I have earlier quoted and which were relied on by Mr. Sen. As I have earlier observed this proposition is not only based on sound logic but is also based on fundamental principles of justice as a person against whom no offence is disclosed, cannot be put to any harassment by the process of investigation which is likely to put his personal liberty and also property which are considered sacred and sacrosanct into peril and jeopardy. 10. In another case reported in Indian Oil Corporation versus NEPC India Ltd., and others, (2006) 6 Supreme Court Cases 736, wherein it was held that : The High Court by common judgment dated 23.3.2001 allowed both the petitions and quashed the two complaints. It accepted the second ground urged by the Respondents herein, but rejected the first ground. The said order of the High Court is under challenge in these appeals. On the rival contentions urged, the following points arise for consideration : (i) Whether existence or availment of civil remedy in respect of disputes arising from breach of contract, bars remedy under criminal law? (ii) Whether the allegations in the complaint, if accepted on face value, constitute any offence under sections 378, 403, 405, 415 or 425 IPC ? Re : Point No. (i) : 9. 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. Re : Point No. (i) : 9. 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 Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ 1988 (1) SCC 692 ], State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], Rupan Deol Bajaj vs. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill [ 1995 (6) SCC 194 ], Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., [ 1996 (5) SCC 591 ], State of Bihar vs. Rajendra Agrawalla [ 1996 (8) SCC 164 ], Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, [ 1999 (3) SCC 259 ], Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. [ 2000 (3) SCC 269 ], Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [ 2000 (4) SCC 168 ], M. Krishnan vs Vijay Kumar [ 2001 (8) SCC 645 ], and Zandu Phamaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque [ 2005 (1) SCC 122 ]. 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. (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 malafides/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. (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 proceedings 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. 10. 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 break down 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 though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, in this case, as per the allegations contained in the complaint, the transaction is purely civil in nature. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to above, in this case, as per the allegations contained in the complaint, the transaction is purely civil in nature. Therefore, it is well settled as per law that a civil transaction cannot be allowed to be dubbed into a criminal complaint and such complaints are liable to be quashed. As per the complaint, it clearly shows that, the allegations in the complaint do not disclose commission of any offence and hence the police should not have registered the same as a crime for the purpose of investigation. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems fit to allow the present writ petition by quashing the impugned FIR. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned the FIR No.227 of 2015 dated 16.12.2015 on the file of Mylavaram Police Station, Krishna District-2nd responded herein, is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.