JUDGMENT : 1. Present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C.’ referred hereinafter) praying to quash the complaint being IC. R.No.29 of 2014 registered with Umala Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant, namely, Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel has filed the aforesaid FIR against two accused, namely Dattubhai @ Chatrasinh Hamirsinh Desaithe present applicant and Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj. It is alleged in the aforesaid FIR that the present applicant is the owner and occupier of the various parcels of land in village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch. One of the land bearing Block No.811A and 811B of village Asha Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch was owned by the applicant and his son namely Hemendrasinh Desai. The agreement to sell came to be executed with regard to the aforesaid land between Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj and the applicant on 09.05.2013 as the said Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj could not make the payment of the amount as agreed therefore, the agreement to sell came to be cancelled vide communication dated 19.12.2013. That, another agreement to sell came to be entered between the applicant and the original complainant, namely Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel, which was executed on 14.05.2013. In the said agreement to sell, Jayendrasinh Raj signed as a witness. The said agreement to sell was signed by the applicant and as his son was not available therefore, his signature could not be obtained. 3. Pursuant to the said agreement, Jayendrasinh Raj has accepted the amount from Dahavalbhai i.e. the complainant and he issued receipt for the same. The amount which is paid to Jayendrasinh Raj was of Rs.1,30,000/out of Rs.79,37,075/. It was alleged in the FIR that when the complainant approached to Chatrasinh and asked him to execute the sale deed, it was conveyed that Bank loan was applied and after sanctioning the loan from the Bank, the sale deed would be executed. Despite of various requests, the sale deed was not executed and when the insistence was made by the complainant to execute the deed, threats were administered by the accused persons named in the FIR. Despite of various requests, the sale deed was not executed and when the insistence was made by the complainant to execute the deed, threats were administered by the accused persons named in the FIR. Thereafter, on 20/12/2012 the accused had given the notice through the advocate Chaganbhai Gobhi conveying cancelling agreement to sell on the ground that Rs.20 Lakh was accepted by Chatrasinh and Rs.60 Lakh was still lying with Jayendrasinh, which is the part of sale consideration as per the agreement to sell but, no sale deed was executed thereafter the FIR came to be filed, which is subject matter of challenge. 4. Heard the learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji for the applicant and learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani for the respondent-complainant. 5. Learned advocate Mr.Harnish Darji for the applicant submits that the accused No.2 introduced the complainant to the applicant. The agreement to sell which was executed on 14.05.2013 between the applicant and the complainant in which the amount of sale consideration is received and receipt thereof was issued by the accused No.2. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that since the condition of the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 is not being complied with, legal notice came to be issued on 20.12.2013 cancelling the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013. The complainant replied to the notice on 22.01.2014 thereafter, approached to the Civil Court by way of filing the suit being special civil suit No.84 of 2014 for the declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance to the agreement to sell. 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that as no relief was granted initially, therefore, the FIR came to be filed on 13.06.2014 for the alleged sections. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that due to cancellation of an agreement to sell civil consequences i.e. civil proceedings arose. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that there is no criminality neither any mensrea in the entire transaction as subsequent to the FIR, learned civil court had granted status quo vide order dated 03.09.2015. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature and with a view to pressurize and to harass the applicant, this impugned FIR came to be filed. 5.3. 5.2. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that dispute between the parties is purely of civil in nature and with a view to pressurize and to harass the applicant, this impugned FIR came to be filed. 5.3. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that applicant is the coowner of the land situated at village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch being Block No.811/A and 811/B and there was no false representation with regard to the ownership neither any inducement by the present applicant. Learned advocate Mr.Darji submits that all the ingredients attracting to the provisions for the offence alleged are missing in the impugned FIR and therefore, the impugned FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and hence, it is prayed to quash the impugned FIR along with the other proceedings arising out of it. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms.Laksha Bhavnani appearing for respondent No.2 has opposed this application and submitted that the agreement to sell dated 09.05.2013 was executed by the applicant and his son, namely, Hemendrasinh Chatrasinh Desai in favour of one Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj, who is accused No.2 in respect of the land situated at village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch bearing Block No.811A and 811B. The total sale consideration which was fixed was of Rs.1,24,49,993/the applicant and his son has accepted the amount of Rs.25 Lakh from the said Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj at the time of executing the agreement to sell dated 09.05.2013. It was agreed in the aforesaid agreement to sell that remaining amount of the consideration was to be paid in part within a period of 90 days from the date of agreement to sell. 6.1. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that the complainant had contacted one Mr.Girish Patel, who is the broker to purchase the land and he came into the knowledge that the accused No.2Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj, who entered into the agreement to sell with the complainant wants to sell this land. On making the inquiry, accused No.2 had informed the complainant that he is not able to pay the remaining amount of the consideration, therefore, he wanted to transfer this land to other person. On being contacted, the present applicant also agreed to sell the land to the complainant and the amount of Rs.51,000/was accepted by the present applicant and his son, namely, Hemendrasinh Chatrasinh Desai. On being contacted, the present applicant also agreed to sell the land to the complainant and the amount of Rs.51,000/was accepted by the present applicant and his son, namely, Hemendrasinh Chatrasinh Desai. Thereafter, agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 was executed by the applicant and the complainant and the amount of sale consideration was fixed of Rs.1,59,37,075/. The assurance was given by the present applicant that previous agreement which was executed with the respondent No.2 would be cancelled and the sale deed would be executed in favour of the complainant. 6.2. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that the present applicant has accepted the amount of Rs.79,49,000/from the complainant before executing the agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 and in the said agreement to sell, accused No.2Jayendrasinh Laxmansinh Raj had also signed as a witness. It is further submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani that on the instructions of the present applicant, the amount of Rs.1,30,000/was paid to the accused No.2 by the complainant and when the complainant had asked to execute the sale deed, it was informed by the accused No.2 that after loan would be sanctioned, which is to be taken on the land, the sale deed would be executed in favour of the respondent No.2. 6.3. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that amount of Rs.81,30,000/was received by the present applicant however, he did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that though at the time of the execution of the deed, assurance was given that the agreement to sell which was executed with the accused No.2 would immediately be cancelled, the same was cancelled after a period of seven months that was on 20.12.2013. 6.4. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that the legal notice, which was issued by the present applicant as well as to the accused No.2 dated 20.12.2013 reflecting that accused No.2 is the relative of the present applicant and therefore, in connivance with the accused No.2, present applicant was cheated. 6.5. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that to see that he would be absolved from the liability of repayment of the amount which was paid by the present complainant, the liability was shifted on the accused No.2 by the present applicant stating that the whole amount is received by accused No.2, however, if that be so, no suit was filed neither any criminal complaint was lodged by the present applicant against the accused No.2. 6.6. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani further submits that the respondent No.2 i.e. the original complainant has also filed the suit before the learned civil court being Special Civil Suit No.84 of 2014 for the specific performance of the notarized agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 as well as for mandatory injunction for the said land an alternatively prayer is made to refund the amount of Rs.81,30,000/along with interest at the rate of 24%. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that merely the dispute stated to have been civil in nature would not be sufficient to hold that the FIR did not warrant a trial. 6.7. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that from the very inception, the intention of the applicant is to defraud the complainant and therefore, the allegations which are made in the FIR are required to be tested by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence, which would be laid during trial. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that this Court while issuing the notice had granted the interim relief in terms of para 10 (C) i.e. the stay of the investigation, therefore, no fruitful investigation was carried out and in absence of the investigation, learned advocate prays not to exercise the inherent power provided under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 6.8. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani further submits that while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the complaint in its entirety shall have to be examined on the basis of the allegation and as the FIR at present has not been investigated, exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. would amount to scrutinizing the FIR, therefore, learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani submits that the application, which is preferred to be dismissed and the investigation may be permitted to continue. 6.9. Learned advocate Ms.Bhavnani has relied on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Priti Saraf and another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 142 , in the case of Mamta Gupta vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine MP 4452 ,in the case of S.S. & Company vs Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, reported in (2008) 5 SCC 772 and in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and other, reported in 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. 7. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, if the allegations made in the complaint is to be examined then following facts come on the record: (i) land bearing revenue block Nos.811/A, 811/B situated at village Asha, Taluka Jaghdiya, District Bharuch is owned by the present applicant, namely, Chatrasinh Hamirsinh Desai and to establish the ownership, the village Form No.7/12 as well as village Form No.8 A produced along with the application. (ii) Agreement to sell was executed between the present applicant and his son with Jayendrasinh Lakshmansinh Raj on 09.05.2013. (iii) On 14.05.2013 another agreement to sell came to be executed between the present applicant and his son with the present complainant, namely Dhavalbhai Bipinbhai Patel. As per the said agreement, the sale consideration was fixed of Rs.1,59,37,075/. In the said agreement the amount which is received by the applicant is mentioned as Rs.51,000/, Rs.79,49,000/and Rs.1,30,000/, in all Rs.81,30,000/. Amount of Rs.79,37,075/was to be paid on or before 05.10.2023, and thereafter, sale deed is to be executed. (iv) Cancellation deed which was executed on 20.12.2013 cancelling the agreement to sell which was executed between the present applicant and his son with Jayendrasinh Lakshmansinh Rajaccused No.2. (v) On 20.12.2013 notice came to be issued by the present applicant to the complainant, respondent No.2 as well as the accused No.2 informing that out of the sale consideration only Rs.80 Lakh is received and from Rs.80 Lakh, Rs.60 Lakh was taken by the respondent No.2 and though there was a condition in the agreement to sell to pay the remaining amount on or before 05.10.2013 the same was not paid and therefore, it was informed that agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 is cancelled. (vi) Respondent No.2 filed a Suit being Special Civil Suit No.84 of 2014 before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleshwar praying for specific performance of notarized agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 or to refund the amount of Rs.81,30,000/with interest. The aforesaid suit came to be filed on 23.05.2014. The learned trial Court has granted status quo vide order dated 03.09.2015. (vii) Present complaint is filed by the respondent No.2 on 13.06.2014 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid suit came to be filed on 23.05.2014. The learned trial Court has granted status quo vide order dated 03.09.2015. (vii) Present complaint is filed by the respondent No.2 on 13.06.2014 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation made in the complaint that though the applicant received Rs.20 Lakh and the accused No.2 has received Rs.60 Lakh, the sale deed was not executed and thereby the complainant was cheated by the applicant in connivance with the accused No.2. 8. The FIR is filed is with regard to the forgery i.e. Sections 420, 467, 468, 120B, 504 and 506. The ingredients which are required to establish the case for forgery is that accused must have committed offence of forgery. That such forgery was committed in relation to the document, which purports to be (a) valuable security, (b) will, (c) an authority to adopt the son, (d) which purports to give the authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, (e) to receive the principal interest, dividend, interest thereof, (f) to receive or deliver any money, movable property or any valuable security or any document purporting to be an acquittance with or receipt acknowledging the payment of money or (g) an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of movable property or valuable security. 9. Forgery is defined under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines that making a false document or part of it, with an intention as specified in the section to cause damage or injury, to any person. From the allegation made in the FIR, there is no document alleged to have been forged by the present applicant, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 10. Admittedly, the present applicant is the owner of the land, who had entered into the agreement to sell with the complainant and thereafter no sale deed was executed. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court it cannot be said that any false documents were created by the present applicant claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else. 11. Admittedly, the present applicant is the owner of the land, who had entered into the agreement to sell with the complainant and thereafter no sale deed was executed. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court it cannot be said that any false documents were created by the present applicant claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else. 11. So far as the allegations made with regard to the cheating defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code if examined then the necessary ingredients to satisfy the offence would be that there must be deception, that the accused must have deceived someone. That by said deception the accused must induce a person (a) to deliver any property (b) to make, alter or destroy the whole or part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into valuable security and (c) the accused did so dishonestly. 12. Again the allegation which is made in the FIR is examined then it comes on the record that the applicant entered into agreement to sell with respondent No.2 and as per the condition, the amount of sale consideration is to be paid on or before 05.10.2013. The legal notice came to be issued on 20.12.2013 informing the complainant that as the amount is not paid within a stipulated time, therefore, agreement to sell dated 14.05.2013 is cancelled. The complainant has filed the suit praying the specific performance of the agreement dated 14.05.2013 and alternatively prayed to return the amount of the sale consideration which was paid to the present applicant as well as respondent No.2. Admittedly, the amount of sale consideration Rs.1,59,37,075/out of which as per the allegation made in the FIR applicant has received Rs.20 Lakh and accused No.2 has received the amount of Rs.60 Lakh. Even if these allegations made in the FIR is accepted on face of it then also at the most the dispute is with regard to the nonexecution of the sale deed and for that the complainant has already filed a civil suit which is pending for adjudication before the learned Civil Court. Therefore, also this Court is of the opinion that no ingredient of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is satisfied from the allegations made in the FIR. 13. Therefore, also this Court is of the opinion that no ingredient of Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code is satisfied from the allegations made in the FIR. 13. With regard to the allegations made for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 are concerned the essential ingredient required is that threatening a person with an injury and the threats must be with an intent i.e. (1) to cause alarm to that person and (2) was that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats. 14. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, wherein it is alleged that the complainant was threatened by the present applicant and the accused No.2 and asked that if he will come again in the village then he would be killed. There were no specific time, date and place mentioned in the FIR, the general allegation which is made in the FIR, in the opinion of this Court does not constitute the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. This Court has also considered the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and others vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in 2010 (1) G.L.H.184. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below: “16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed. 17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted. 18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of "cheating" are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 19. To constitute an offence under section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security). 20. 20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed, to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused. 21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner. 22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code. A clarification 23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. 24. The term `fraud' is not defined in the Code. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint. 24. The term `fraud' is not defined in the Code. The dictionary definition of `fraud' is "deliberate deception, treachery or cheating intended to gain advantage". Section 17 of the Contract Act, 1872 defines `fraud' with reference to a party to a contract. 25. In Dr. Vimla vs. Delhi Administration - AIR 1963 SC 1572 , this Court explained the meaning of the expression `defraud' thus: “14."The expression "defraud" involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied." The above definition was in essence reiterated in State of UP vs. Ranjit Singh - 1999 (2) SCC 617 . 26. The Penal Code however defines `fraudulently', an adjective form of the word `fraud', in section 25, as follows : "A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise". 27. The term "fraudulently" is mostly used with the term "dishonestly" which is defined in section 24 as follows : “24. Dishonestly-Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person is said to do that thing "dishonestly" 28. To `defraud' or do something fraudulently is not by itself made an offence under the Penal Code, but various acts when done fraudulently (or fraudulently and dishonestly) are made offences. These include: (i) Fraudulent removal or concealment of property (sec.206, 421, 424) (ii) Fraudulent claim to property to prevent seizure (sec. 207). (iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (sec. 208 and 210) (iv) Fraudulent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin (sec.239, 240, 242 and 243). (v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (sec. 246 to 253) (vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (sec. 207). (iii) Fraudulent suffering or obtaining a decree (sec. 208 and 210) (iv) Fraudulent possession/delivery of counterfeit coin (sec.239, 240, 242 and 243). (v) Fraudulent alteration/diminishing weight of coin (sec. 246 to 253) (vi) Fraudulent acts relating to stamps (sec. 261-261) (vii) Fraudulent use of false instruments/weight/measure (sec.264 to 266) (viii) Cheating (sec. 415 to 420) (ix) Fraudulent prevention of debt being available to creditors (sec. 422). (x) Fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration (sec. 423) (xi) Forgery making or executing a false document (sec. 463 to 471 and 474) (xii) Fraudulent cancellation/destruction of valuable security etc.(sec. 477) (xiii) Fraudulently going through marriage ceremony (sec.496). It follows therefore that by merely alleging or showing that a person acted fraudulently, it cannot be assumed that he committed an offence punishable under the Code or any other law, unless that fraudulent act is specified to be an offence under the Code or other law. Section 504 of Penal Code. 29. The allegations in the complaint do not also made out the ingredients of an offence under section 504 of the Penal Code. Section 504 refers to intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. The allegation in the complainant is that when he enquired with accused 1 and 2 about the sale deeds, they asserted that they will obtain possession of land under the sale deeds and he can do whatever he wants. The statement attributed to appellants 1 and 2, it cannot be said to amount to an "insult with intent to provoke breach of peace". The statement attributed to accused, even if it was true, was merely a statement referring to the consequence of execution of the sale deeds by first appellant in favour of the second appellant.” 16. Considering the overall circumstances and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the continuation of the FIR would amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, to secure the ends of justice the impugned FIR requires to be quashed. 17. Resultantly, this application is allowed. FIR being IC. R.No.29 of 2014 registered with Umalla Police Station, Bharuch is quashed and set aside with consequential proceedings, if any.