ORDER: J. SREENIVAS RAO, J. This Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 seeking to quash the proceedings in F.I.R.No.44 of 2023 of Jogipet Police Station, Sangareddy District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 350, 390, 388, 420 and 403 read with 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). 2. Brief facts of the case: Respondent No.2/de facto complainant and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 stayed together in Hyderabad from 2007 to 2010 and during their studies/employment, developed close friendship. Later, petitioner No.1 left for the United States. At the request of petitioner No.1, respondent No.2 looked after his parents, assisted in their welfare, and supported their business activities including Blue Dart Courier Franchise (S.S. Experts), pallet business and other transactions. In 2014, a Volkswagen Vento car bearing No.AP 23 AM 6006 was purchased by petitioner No.1 in the name of respondent No.2 by availing loan from HDFC Bank for his family benefit. Later, in the year 2017, refinanced with Axis Bank, and respondent No.2 is continuing to pay EMIs and finally settled the matter before an Arbitrator in November 2021, thereby, he became owner of the vehicle. On 05.12.2020, the vehicle was forcibly taken away by petitioner No.2/accused No.2, at the instance of petitioner No.1, and it is still under the custody of the petitioners. When respondent No.2 demanded to return the vehicle, petitioner No.1 threatened him that he will file false cases, such as, drug case, murder case and dacoity case. Subsequently, the petitioners fabricated documents and misused the cheques of respondent No.2, which were kept in the car dashboard, and filed several false cases against respondent No.2 and his family, including civil suits i.e., O.S. No.161 of 2022 and O.S.No.59 of 2021, criminal complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act at Rajendranagar, Calcutta and Aurangabad, and arbitration proceedings regarding the vehicle loan. On 26.12.2022, petitioner No.2 further misused respondent No.2’s cheque No.001466 for Rs.12,00,000/-, which he immediately stopped through ICICI Bank, but the cheque was returned marked as “Funds Insufficient”. After that, petitioner No.2 has threatened him to eliminate him and his family members, if he did not pay the cheque amount. Despite lodging a report with Jogipet Police Station on 06.02.2023 and approaching DSP and Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, no action has been taken. After that, petitioner No.2 has threatened him to eliminate him and his family members, if he did not pay the cheque amount. Despite lodging a report with Jogipet Police Station on 06.02.2023 and approaching DSP and Superintendent of Police, Sangareddy, no action has been taken. Hence, he filed a private complaint on the file of the Hon’ble Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet. Basing on the same, F.I.R.No. 44 of 2023 was registered on 13.03.2023 under the Sections 120B, 350, 390, 388, 420 and 403 read with 34 of the IPC. 3. Heard Mr. K. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mrs. K. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. J. Venugopal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners: 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and respondent No.2 falsely implicated the petitioners in the present case to dissolve the disputes which are pending between him and the petitioners. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the ingredients of Sections 120B, 350, 390, 388, 420 and 403 read with 34 of the IPC do not attract against the petitioners. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the learned Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet, and the learned Magistrate, without verifying the contents of the complaint, simply referred the matter to the police for investigation. Basing on the same, the police registered F.I.R.No.44 of 2023. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. 4.2. He further submitted that even according to the allegations made in the complaint, the alleged incident occurred on 05.12.2020, whereas, respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint on 01.03.2023, after lapse of long period, without assigning any reasons. 4.3. Even according to the complaint, respondent No.2 himself stated that petitioner No.1 purchased a Car i.e., Volkswagen Vento, bearing No.AP 23 AM 6006 in the year 2014 in the name of respondent No.2 for the benefit of the parents of petitioner No.1 and his family members and respondent No.2 paid some amount to the Axis Bank in arbitration proceedings. 4.3. Even according to the complaint, respondent No.2 himself stated that petitioner No.1 purchased a Car i.e., Volkswagen Vento, bearing No.AP 23 AM 6006 in the year 2014 in the name of respondent No.2 for the benefit of the parents of petitioner No.1 and his family members and respondent No.2 paid some amount to the Axis Bank in arbitration proceedings. Even if any amount is due by the petitioners, respondent No.2 ought to have initiated the proceedings for recovery of the amount from the petitioners, on the other hand, he lodged a complaint for the penal offences and the same is not permissible under law. 4.4. He further submitted that respondent No.2 had made false allegations that at the instance of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2 took away the vehicle from the possession of respondent No.2, especially, petitioner No.1 is residing abroad. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint, there are civil and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the N.I. Act’) cases pending between respondent No.2 and the petitioners and to settle all the said cases, respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint and the same is clear abuse of the process of law. 4.5. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Hasmukhlal D. Vora and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1033 2. K. Venugopal v. K. Venkata Mandadi and others , [2013 (3) ALT (Crl.) 86] ; and 3. Rashmi Jain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another , (2014) 13 SCC 553 5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 5.1. Per contra, learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.1 had purchased the car in the year 2014 by availing loan from the HDFC Bank in the name of respondent No.2 and later, the loan account was transferred to Axis Bank and respondent No.2 paid regular EMIs to the said Axis Bank and also settled the matter before the Arbitrator by paying an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, pursuant to the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in November, 2021. Hence, respondent No.2 became the owner of the vehicle. 5.2. He further submitted that when respondent No.2 was proceeding towards Jogipet Town on 05.12.2020, petitioner No.2 forcibly took the vehicle from him, at the instance of petitioner No.1. Hence, respondent No.2 became the owner of the vehicle. 5.2. He further submitted that when respondent No.2 was proceeding towards Jogipet Town on 05.12.2020, petitioner No.2 forcibly took the vehicle from him, at the instance of petitioner No.1. Further, the petitioners have threatened respondent No.2 that if any complaint is lodged against them, they would foist false cases against him, such as, drugs case, murder case and dacoity case. There is a clear conspiracy between petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and with an ill intention, filed cases against respondent No.2. He further submitted that petitioner No.4 filed a false case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, basing on the cheques forcibly obtained in June, 2020. 5.3. He further submitted that the police seized the vehicle on 18.03.2023 from the house of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to seek quashing of the proceedings in F.I.R.No.44 of 2023, especially, the investigation is under progress. 5.4. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Punit Beriwala v. State of NCT of Delhi and others , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983. Analysis: 6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material available on record. The allegations made in the complaint that petitioner No.1 had purchased Volkswagen Vento Car bearing No.AP 23 AM 6006 in the year 2014 in the name of respondent No.2 by availing loan from HDFC Bank for the benefit of his parents and his family necessities. Further, the said loan account was transferred to Axis Bank in the year 2017 and respondent No.2 paid EMIs to the said Axis Bank and he also settled the matter before the Arbitrator by paying an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-, pursuant to the orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the month November, 2021. 7. On perusal of the complaint, the allegation levelled against petitioner No.2 is that he forcibly took the vehicle from the possession of respondent No.2 on 05.12.2020. The allegation levelled against the other petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4, is that they threatened respondent No.2 that if any complaints are going to be filed against them in respect of the vehicle, they will implicate him in false cases. 8. The allegation levelled against the other petitioners i.e., petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4, is that they threatened respondent No.2 that if any complaints are going to be filed against them in respect of the vehicle, they will implicate him in false cases. 8. The alleged incident has occurred on 05.12.2020, whereas respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on 01.03.2023, i.e., after lapse of more than two years, without assigning any reasons for the delay, except stating that after the incident, he approached Jogipet Police Station and lodged a complaint, however, the police received the complaint on 06.02.2023, but no action was taken up. However, respondent No.2 has not mentioned that when he had lodged the complaint before the police or enclosed a copy of the complaint along with the private complaint. 9. Insofar as the other allegation made by respondent No.2 that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 filed false cases against him is concerned, from perusal of the complaint, it reveals that petitioner No.3 filed suit in O.S.No.12 of 2021 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Medak, and it was renumbered as O.S.No.161 of 2022 and the same is pending before the Principal District Judge at Sangareddy and petitioner No.4 filed S.T.C.No.18 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner No.2 filed suit in O.S.No.59 of 2021 before the Principal District Judge at Sanga Reddy. 10. The above said cases were filed by the petitioners are much prior to filing of the present complaint dated 01.03.2023 by respondent No.2. It is already stated supra, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint after lapse of more than two years from the date of the alleged incident and he has not given any reasons, much less specific reasons, for the said long period of delay. 11. In Hasmukhlal D. Vora supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where there was a delay of over four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the criminal complaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring the judgment in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar , held that inordinate and unexplained delay if not reasonably explained can be fatal to the case of prosecution. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while referring the judgment in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar , held that inordinate and unexplained delay if not reasonably explained can be fatal to the case of prosecution. 12. In Rashmi Jain supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the dispute between the parties was originally civil in nature, and the allegations against the appellant had been inserted maliciously to convert a commercial dispute into a criminal case. Relying on Anil Mahajan v. Bhor Industries Ltd. , the Court reiterated that mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating unless there is a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of inducement. Referring to Bhajan Lal v. State of Haryana , it noted that proceedings can be quashed where allegations are inherently improbable or maliciously instituted. Applying these principles, the Court allowed the appeal under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashed the proceedings against the appellant, discharged the bail bonds, and set aside the High Court order, observing that the case fell within categories of frivolous or mala fide criminal proceedings. 13. In K. Venugopal supra, the court addressed a civil dispute over property and crops in which criminal complaints were filed alleging trespass and theft. The court observed that while pending civil disputes do not automatically bar criminal prosecution, when the alleged acts are intertwined with the civil dispute and intended to harass the other party, the proper remedy lies in civil proceedings, not criminal cases. The complaint against accused No.1 was particularly ex facie false, as he was not mentioned in the civil suit, and the allegations appeared to be maliciously filed to settle personal scores. Exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice, and therefore the criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed. 14. The principle established from the above judgments is that criminal proceedings should not be misused to pressurize or harass a party in the context of a civil dispute. Courts have held that when allegations in a criminal complaint are inherently connected to civil matters, are improbable, or are filed mala fide, the proper remedy lies in civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecution. Such proceedings, if allowed to continue, constitute an abuse of the process of law and may result in a miscarriage of justice. Courts have held that when allegations in a criminal complaint are inherently connected to civil matters, are improbable, or are filed mala fide, the proper remedy lies in civil proceedings rather than criminal prosecution. Such proceedings, if allowed to continue, constitute an abuse of the process of law and may result in a miscarriage of justice. The guiding principle is that criminal law must serve justice and cannot be employed as a tool to convert civil disputes into criminal cases. 15. In Punit Beriwala supra, set aside the Delhi High Court’s order which had quashed the F.I.R. against Vikramjit Singh and Maheep Singh. The dispute arose from a 2004 Agreement to Sell a property at Prithvi Raj Road, where Bhai Manjit Singh falsely claimed to be the Karta of his HUF, though Vikramjit was the real Karta. Relying on this, the appellant paid about Rs.1.64 crore, but later discovered the property was already mortgaged and eventually sold to J.K. Paper Ltd. The Court held that there was clear misrepresentation from the beginning, and Vikramjit and Maheep knowingly allowed it. It further ruled that the existence of a civil case or delay in filing the FIR cannot be grounds to stop criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and revived the FIR against the respondents for offences of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, directing that the investigation must continue. 16. The above said judgment i.e, Punit Beriwala supra, is not applicable to the present case. The principle laid down in that decision is that when there is fraudulent misrepresentation or deception at the very inception of a transaction, the existence of civil proceedings or delay in setting the criminal law in motion cannot, by itself, be a ground to quash the prosecution. The Court therein emphasized that such cases involve criminality from the outset, which cannot be masked as a mere civil dispute. The present matter, however, does not involve any allegation of fraudulent inducement from the inception, and therefore the ratio in Punit Beriwala cannot be extended to the facts at hand. 17. It is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations in the complaint against petitioner No.1, except stating that he threatened respondent No.2 that if he asks the subject vehicle, he would foist false cases against him and his family members. 17. It is already stated supra that there are no specific allegations in the complaint against petitioner No.1, except stating that he threatened respondent No.2 that if he asks the subject vehicle, he would foist false cases against him and his family members. Admittedly, as on the date of alleged offence, petitioner No.1 is residing abroad. Similarly, there are no specific allegations against petitioner Nos.3 and 4. The only allegation made against them is that they filed false cases basing upon fabricated documents. Admittedly, the cases which were filed by them, much prior to filing of the present complaint and the said cases are pending adjudication before the competent Courts. 18. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of proceedings against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in F.I.R.No.44 of 2023 of Jogipet Police Station, Sangareddy District, amounts to abuse of the process of law. 19. Insofar as petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that there is a specific allegation against him that he forcibly took the vehicle from the possession of respondent No.2. The record discloses that the Sub- Inspector of Police, Jogipet, seized the vehicle, through seizure panchanama, dated 18.03.2023, from the premises of petitioner No.2/accused No.2. 20. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned supra, the proceedings in F.I.R.No.44 of 2023 on the file of the Jogipet Police Station, are hereby quashed against petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, and dismissed the criminal petition against petitioner No.2/accused No.2. 21. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed in part. It is made clear that any of the observations made in this order are only confined for the purpose of deciding this case. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.