ORDER : Anil Kumar Upman, J. 1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner assailing the order dated 08.02.2018 passed by learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalawar in Criminal Revision No.92/2017 whereby the learned revisional court dismissed the revision and affirmed the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur District Jhalawar taking cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC, in connection with FR No.66/2009 and FIR No.229/2009, Police Station Khanpur District Jhalawar. 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are that on 29.05.2009, the respondent No.2/complainant herein submitted a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur, Jhalawar, alleging inter alia that he is a farmer by profession and earns his livelihood from agriculture activities. It was alleged in the complaint that the accused petitioner deals in clothes, ornaments and agricultural produces (jeans) etc. and runs a business in the name of M/s Premchand Praveen Kumar Kagla. It was alleged that on 02.04.2008, the accused petitioner bought 85 quintal of wheat @ Rs.1000/- per quintal and 54 quintal of wheat @ Rs.1100/- per qunital from him. Out of the total sale consideration of Rs.1,44,000/-, Rs.40,000/- were paid in cash and for remaining balance of Rs.1,04,000/-, the accused petitioner gave assurance letter to him on his firm's letter pad. However, the petitioner did not make the remaining payment on one pretext or the other. It was also alleged in the complaint that when he demanded the remaining sale consideration, the accused petitioner started quarreling and abusing him. The learned magistrate court forwarded the complaint to the concerned police station for investigation whereupon, the FIR No.229/2009 came to be registered at Police Station Khanpur District Jhalawar for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. 3. After registration of FIR, the police investigated the matter and submitted a negative final report in the court concerned, opining it to be a civil nature dispute. The respondent No.2/complainant filed a protest petition in this matter challenging the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as AW.1 and got recorded statements of four other witnesses before the learned trial court. The respondent No.2/complainant filed a protest petition in this matter challenging the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as AW.1 and got recorded statements of four other witnesses before the learned trial court. Vide order dated 01.02.2016, learned trial magistrate, refused to accept the negative final report submitted by the investigating agency and while accepting the protest petition, took cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC against the accused petitioner. The petitioner assailed the order taking cognizance before learned Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Jhalwar in Revision Petition No.92/2017. However, the learned revisional court also dismissed the revision of the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 01.02.2016 passed by learned trial magistrate. Hence, this criminal misc. petition. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that learned trial court as well as learned revisional court committed grave error of law and facts while passing the impugned orders. He submits that the investigating agency, after thoroughly investigating the matter, submitted negative final report in the court concerned, opining it to be a civil nature dispute and as such, there was no occasion for the learned trial magistrate, to discard the negative final report and took cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC. Alternatively, he contends that even for the sake of argument, if the story narrated by the complainant in the FIR is accepted to be true, then also, no offence is made out against the petitioner and it would be a civil nature dispute, arising out of business transactions, for which, initiation of criminal proceedings by way of impugned FIR would amount to abuse of process of law. The complainant has the option to seek civil remedies such as damages, injunctions, or specific performance or to file suit to recover the dues, which are better suited to address commercial disputes rather than resorting to criminal prosecution. He submits that the learned trial court as well as learned revisional court have erred in passing the orders impugned and same are liable to be set aside. He thus, prays that the instant misc. petition may be accepted and both the impugned may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. He thus, prays that the instant misc. petition may be accepted and both the impugned may be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. It is contended that from bare perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, it is clearly revealed that the petitioner has committed fraud and breach of trust with the complainant and therefore the learned trial court was perfectly justified in taking cognizable for offences under Sections 420 and 409 IPC against the petitioner. They also contend that the trial magistrate was not bound to accept the investigation report of the investigating agency. The order taking cognizance dated 01.02.2016 was further rightly upheld by learned regisional court vide order dated 08.02.2018 and both the orders impugned do not require any interference. It is thus, prayed that the misc petition may be dismissed. 6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 7. Though the order taking cognizance is not a final conclusion of trial and it is just a prima facie opinion of the trial magistrate, based on material available on record that offence has been committed but at the same time, this court is conscious of the fact that criminal proceedings are not allowed to be used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. 8. A careful reading of the complaint, the gist of which this court has extracted above would show that none of the ingredients of any of the offences complained against the petitioner are made out. Even if all the averments contained in the FIR are taken to be true, they do not make out any of the offences alleged against the petitioner. When FIR itself and the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., disclosed nothing more than a commercial relationship, it is not possible for respondent No.2 to enlarge the scope of his complaint by merely adding the language used in the text of the Indian Penal Code. It is a pure civil nature dispute for which, instead of resorting to civil remedies, the complainant-respondent No.2 has initiated criminal proceedings. Resolving such disputes through criminal prosecution could lead to overly harsh punishments that may not fit the circumstances. It is a pure civil nature dispute for which, instead of resorting to civil remedies, the complainant-respondent No.2 has initiated criminal proceedings. Resolving such disputes through criminal prosecution could lead to overly harsh punishments that may not fit the circumstances. The investigating agency also after after conducting investigation in the matter did not find any case made out against the petitioner. 9. Criminal action against a party means they have to deal with police, court hearings, loss of reputation and a variety of other kinds of pressure. Hence, to avoid such issues, many parties succumb to this pressure and concede to the other party. India differentiates between criminal law and civil law by different statutes, different remedies and different punishments. Commercial disputes are often complex matters involving contractual agreements, business practices, and interpretations of trade laws and regulations. Maintaining a clear separation between criminal law (designed to punish conduct that threatens public safety and welfare) and commercial law (designed to govern the fair conduct of business dealings) helps preserve the legitimacy and proper scope of each legal domain. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 ( 11) SCC 673 has held as under:- "7. 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. 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. 8. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. 8. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2’s attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 of the IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been extremely strict while dealing with such instances in the past. Recently, in the case of Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar & Anr, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 714 , the Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it is indisputable that the magistrate must use a broad perspective and consider a prima facie case when conducting the investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. However, even when conducting or holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to take into account a number of factors, including whether or not even a prima facie case is made out, whether or not the criminal proceedings that were initiated are an abuse of the legal system, whether or not the dispute is solely civil in nature, and whether or not the civil dispute is attempted to be given a criminal dispute colour. 12. Section 482 Cr.P.C plays a vital role in ensuring no civil cases are turned into criminal cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the famous case of State of Haryana & Ors. 12. Section 482 Cr.P.C plays a vital role in ensuring no civil cases are turned into criminal cases. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the famous case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Anr., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, stated that the case should be quashed “where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” The courts should not hesitate in quashing the criminal proceedings which are essentially arising out of civil or commercial disputes between the two parties as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Paramjeet Batra (supra). 13. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court deems it a fit case for exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the impugned orders. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 01.02.2016 and 08.02.2018 passed by learned trial magistrate as well as learned revisional court are quashed and set aside. The proceedings pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur in connection with FR No.66/2009 (FIR No.229/2009 registered at Police Station Khanpur, Jhalawar) are quashed and set aside. However, the complainant-respondent No.2 would be at liberty to avail suitable remedy for ventilating his grievance in accordance with law.