ORDER : The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[for short “Cr.P.C”] has been filed by the Petitioner/Accused, seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.1113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.[for short “I.P.C.”] 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows a. Petitioner and Respondent No.2 are brothers, who have started jewellery business in the name and style of “Zeenath Jewellery Shop” on 01.07.1980 and have entered into a deed of partnership dated 01.08.1985. Subsequently, in the course of time, another jewellery shop was also set up in the name “Zeenath Gold Palace” which is under the management of Respondent No.2. Thereafter, the second shop got closed due to the losses sustained in the business. b. It is stated that the efforts made by Respondent No.2 to get his legitimate half share in the properties purchased from the nucleus of joint business funds, did not fructify and as such, Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa for partition and separate possession of half share in the properties purchased by the Accused. c. On receipt of summons in the said suit, the Accused created a bogus deed of dissolution dated 01.10.1987, by forging signature of Respondent No.2 by giving a colour that the partnership in Zeenath Jewellery between him and Respondent No.2 was dissolved way back on 01.10.1987 by claiming that the said deed was submitted to the A.C.T.O., Kadapa vide letter dated 01.11.2001. Consequently, due to the pressure of Accused, Respondent No.2 compromised O.S.No.23 of 2001 and a decree to that effect had also been passed on 28.03.2006. d. Thereafter, the Accused filed O.S.No.82 of 2012 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa seeking declaration of title and cancellation of sale deeds executed by the Respondent No.2 and for consequential permanent injunction. In fact, those properties were gifted to Respondent No.2 by the Accused orally, but the Accused for the reasons best known to him, took a somersault and again claiming right over those properties. In fact, those properties were gifted to Respondent No.2 by the Accused orally, but the Accused for the reasons best known to him, took a somersault and again claiming right over those properties. e. As such, the Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the Petitioner/Accused for the alleged offences on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa and the learned Magistrate vide Order passed in C.F.R.No.4315 of 2017 dated 16.07.2019, had taken cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC. Grounds sought for Quashment: 3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the said case, Petitioner/ Accused filed the present petition seeking quashment of the proceedings in the above crime on the following grounds: a. Respondent No.2 had chosen to commence these criminal proceedings after his failure in the civil litigation based on the same cause of action. It is purely a civil dispute and initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. b. Even the allegation of forgery, threat and coercion as pleaded in the suit filed by Respondent No.2 could not be established and once again on the same allegations, initiating the criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. c. The ingredients of the offences for which cognizance is taken, are not fulfilled. d. Perusal of the complaint discloses that the same is filed by Respondent No.2 for achieving his share in the property which is already subject matter in the suits. Arguments Advanced at the Bar 4. Heard Sri G.Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Ms.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the State/Respondent No.1 and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition, would submit that the Respondent No.2 is disputing all the documents in the earlier litigation, which were held against him and has lodged the present complaint to blackmail the Petitioner to accept his terms. He would submit that the matter is purely a civil dispute and hence, initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. He would submit that the matter is purely a civil dispute and hence, initiation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would submit that the plea of forgery, threat and coercion were not established in the civil suit filed by Respondent No.2 and based on the self-same allegations the present complaint has been filed, which is not maintainable. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences based on the affidavit without examining/recording the statement of the person in the Court, which is contrary to law. Learned counsel would submit that there are no ingredients to attract the alleged offences. 6. In contrast, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the witnesses stated before the Court that the dissolution of the firm is in the year 2001, but not in the year 1987. Learned counsel would further submit that the findings given by the learned Magistrate in CFR No.4315 of 2017 would clearly indicate that the Petitioner had committed the offences alleged against him. Learned counsel finally submits that there are clear allegations which would attract the ingredients of the alleged offences against the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor conceded to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Point for Determination 8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel representing both the parties, now the point that would emerge for determination is: Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of proceedings against Petitioner/Accused in C.C. No. 1113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa? Determination by the Court 9. A perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a trial court, court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 10. Specific circumstances warranting the invocation of the provision must be present. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” (emphasis supplied) 11. In the case on hand, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner/Accused had cheated him without giving his legitimate half share in the properties purchased by the Accused from the profits fetched from the partnership business, by indulging in fabrication of deed of dissolution by forging the signature of Respondent No.2. In the case on hand, it is alleged by Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner/Accused had cheated him without giving his legitimate half share in the properties purchased by the Accused from the profits fetched from the partnership business, by indulging in fabrication of deed of dissolution by forging the signature of Respondent No.2. A fair look at the material placed on record would clearly show that Respondent No.2 filed a suit in O.S.No.23 of 2001 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge, Kadapa against the Petitioner herein and others for partition of the properties and subsequently, the said suit was compromised between the parties and a compromise decree dated 28.03.2006 was also passed. Subsequently, the Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.82 of 2012 on the file of the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa and the said suit was decreed in favour of the Petitioner herein on 29.06.2019 by declaring his title over the schedule property and also by declaring the sale deeds and GPA executed by Respondent No.2 herein in favour of third parties as null and void and also by granting permanent injunction. During pendency of the suit in O.S.82 of 2012, the present complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.2 on the same allegations which were raised in both the suits in O.S.23 of 2001 and 82 of 2012. Since the decree passed in O.S.No.23 of 2001 was a compromise decree, the same cannot be challenged. 12. Perusal of the entire episode would reveal that the matter is purely a civil dispute relating to the title over the property and the same was also declared by a civil Court O.S.No.82 of 2012. In such a case, the present criminal proceedings which were lodged based on the same contentions raised in the above suits, are not sustainable. In Uma Shankar Gopalika v State of Bihar, (2005) 10 SCC 336 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in a pure civil dispute, if the complaint does not disclose a criminal offence, it is liable to be quashed. Relevant para reads thus; “In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. Relevant para reads thus; “In our view petition of complaint does not disclose any criminal offence at all much less any offence either under Section 420 or Section 120-B IPC and the present case is a case of purely civil dispute between the parties for which remedy lies before a civil court by filing a properly constituted suit. In our opinion, in view of these facts allowing the police investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of court and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers under Section 482 Code which it has erroneously refused.” (emphasis supplied) 13. It is apt to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 at Para No. 12, which reads: “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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 14. This view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another v. State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196 where it was held that in cases which are essentially of civil nature with no criminal element, continuation of criminal proceedings is not tenable. 15. This view was again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and another v. State of Karnataka and another, 2024 INSC 196 where it was held that in cases which are essentially of civil nature with no criminal element, continuation of criminal proceedings is not tenable. 15. In Mohammad Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another, 2009 (8) SCC 751 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes……….” (emphasis supplied) 16. To summarize, a set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant would itself not be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the uncontroverted allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence or not. In the present case, a bare perusal of the allegations leveled against the Petitioner, would clearly go to show that no prima facie case is made out against him for the offences alleged. Further, the right and title of Petitioner over the subject property was already decided by the Civil Court. Furthermore, the allegations mentioned in the complaint would clearly show that the purely a civil dispute was given the colour of a criminal offence, based on the same allegations which were already decided by the Civil Court. 17. In view of the above discussion and in view of the first guideline in Bhajanlal’s case (supra), even if the allegations mentioned in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner. 18. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused in C.C.No.1113 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa, for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with 34 IPC. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.