JUDGMENT : PRANJAL DAS, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed by the petitioners, namely, 1. Hasbi Mehazabur Rahman and 2. Rana Ahmed under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023 , seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 39/2025, pending before the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M). 3. The facts giving rise to the instant proceeding may be narrated in a nutshell: the complainant i.e. Mustafa Syed Mahmood Muktadir. The respondent herein entered into an agreement with the petitioner/accused no.1 i.e. Hasbi Mehazabur Rahman vide deed of agreement dated 22.05.2018 bearing deed no.6428/2018 for construction of a multistoried building over the land of the complainant measuring 4 Katha 9 Lechas covered by Dag No.337, Patta No.1957 located in Beltola area in the district of Kamrup(M), Guwahati and described in the Schedule-A of the said deed of agreement. 4. Pursuant of such agreement, on the very same day i.e. 22.05.2018, the complainant and the present petitioner no.1 executed a general power of attorney, authorizing in law the petitioner no.1, Hasbi Mehazabur Rahman, to take all steps to execute the project of construction of multistoried building over the Schedule land. As per these two documents, Hasbi Mehazabur Rahman stated to be proprietor of “Frontier Infratech” undertaking this kind of business. 5. It is the grievance of the complainant that subsequently vide deed of partnership dated 04.04.2020 and behind the back of the complainant and without informing him; brought in two more persons into the sole proprietorship, thereby converting it into a partnership of these two new persons who were Rana Ahmed and Motiur Rahman, and it was stated that the partnership business will now be carried on under the name and style of “Frontier Infratech”. 6. In para 11 of the said partnership deal, it was mentioned that the first partner Motiur Rahman would have a share of 49.75 % of the profit; the second partner Rana Ahmed would also have 49.75 % of the profit and the third partner being the present no.1 i.e. Hasbi Mehazabur Rahman will have a share of 0.5% of the total profit. 7. 7. On coming to know about the said development, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 23.03.2022 to the petitioner no.1 through his learned counsel regulating his grievances and pointing out that the change in the legal position entered into between the parties was changed by the petitioner no.1 by keeping the complainant in the term. Thereafter, the complainant choose to revoke the executed deed of revocation of the general power of attorney which was executed on 22.05.2018. The deed of revocation of the general power of attorney was dated 10.06.2022. The petitioner no.1 aggrieved by the same filed a title suit being TS No.649/2022 challenging the said revocation of the power of attorney by the complainant and in the said suit, he also sought compensation amounting to Rs.3 Crore. 8. The complainant filed a counter claim in the said title suit (TS No.649/2022) seeking a compensation of approximately of Rs. 35 Lakhs for delay in the project and the concomitant losses thereof. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the dispute at hand is primarily a civil dispute between the builder and the landlord with regard to the project of construction of multi storey buildings which ran into some difficulties due to the earlier narrated developments. 10. It is submitted that the petitioners are seeking quashing of the criminal complaint case as these have emanated from what is essentially a civil dispute and therefore, continuance of a criminal proceeding by way of a complaint case would be an abuse of the court process justifying invocation of the powers under Section 528 of the BNSS ,2023 pertaining to inherent powers under criminal law available to this court. 11. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned herein that the respondent herein aggrieved by the above narrated conduct on the part of the petitioners filed the complaint case against Hasbi Mehazabur Rahman and Rana Ahmed, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 39/2025 and assigned to the learned Court of JMFC, Kamrup(M) for trial and adjudication. 12. The complaint has been filed invoking the provisions of Sections 318 (4)/223/61 of the BNS , 2023. It is submitted at the Bar that the complaint case is at the stage of hearing necessitated by the new provision under BNS S 2022 before taking cognizance and issuance of summons, if any. 12. The complaint has been filed invoking the provisions of Sections 318 (4)/223/61 of the BNS , 2023. It is submitted at the Bar that the complaint case is at the stage of hearing necessitated by the new provision under BNS S 2022 before taking cognizance and issuance of summons, if any. However, there is an order of stay vide order dated 23.05.2025 regarding further proceedings in the complaint. 13. I have heard Mr. G.Z. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, who has taken through the relevant materials again including the deed of agreement dated 22.05.2018, the deed of general power of attorney dated 22.05.2018, the deed of partnership dated 04.09.2020, entered into by the accused person; the subsequent revocation of power of attorney by the respondent/complainant and other relevant materials. 14. The learned counsel has taken the Court through other relevant portions of the scanned copy of the record received from the learned Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M) drawing attention to paragraph no.17, 18, 19 and 20. 15. At this stage, it has to be taken note of regarding the position of law governing the subject matter. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions that essentially civil disputes cannot be allowed to be converted into criminal proceedings and that the same would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court justifying exercise of inherent powers to quash such proceedings. 16. However, a mere existence of a civil dispute would not necessarily justify quashing of a connected criminal proceeding as because a dispute between the parties might have a sole civil dimension as well as two dimensions being civil and criminal. The Court has to carefully peruse the materials of the criminal proceeding and ascertain as to whether this is merely an attempt to add an unjustified criminal dimension to what is essentially a civil dispute, so as to bring some pressure upon the concerned party in the civil litigation. 17. At the same time, it has also to be seen as to whether the criminal litigation has genuine criminal law ingredients and raises a points which bonafide require adjudication by criminal court. In the later situation, the court would not be justified to quash the criminal proceedings. 17. At the same time, it has also to be seen as to whether the criminal litigation has genuine criminal law ingredients and raises a points which bonafide require adjudication by criminal court. In the later situation, the court would not be justified to quash the criminal proceedings. It is well settled that appreciation of evidence is the exclusive domain of the trial court and to a significant extent, the first Appellate Court. 18. No such appreciation of evidence can be conducted by a court exercising inherent powers; after all, quashing of a criminal prosecution amounts to nipping a criminal prosecution in the Bar and it can only be done so within the settled parameters of law which has evolved over the years starting from the foundational judgment of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and further the legal principles further built upon in many subsequent decisions. With regard to exercise of powers of quashing vis-a-vis civil disputes, a reference may be made to Indian Oil Corporation Vs. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 19. Coming back to the facts of the instant case, it is revealed from the complaint that the petitioner no.1 projected himself as experienced builder having the sole partnership of “Frontier Infratech” and the respondent/complainant was persuaded to enter into the agreement regarding the building project on his land for his economic well being. 20. The subsequent act of the petitioner no.1/accused in bringing in two other persons, namely Rana Ahmed and Motiur Rahman is alleged to be behind the back of the complainant without their knowledge. 21. By such act, the conversion of the sole proprietorship into partnership which would have now undertaken the project on the land of the complainant was also alleged to have been done without informing the respondent/complainant. Thus, as for the alleged change made by the petitioner no.1, the project was now to be undertaken by partnership firm including two other persons though the complainant had entered into the agreement only with the petitioner no.1. 22. Thus, as for the alleged change made by the petitioner no.1, the project was now to be undertaken by partnership firm including two other persons though the complainant had entered into the agreement only with the petitioner no.1. 22. Interestingly, it is also revealed prima facie from the materials that one of the persons, Motiur Rahman subsequently withdrew from the partnership vide communication dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure- G of the scanned TCR) and in the said communication, he has stated about being incorporated into the partnership by keeping the land owner/complainant in the dark. 23. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though said Motiur Rahman is not one of the accused in the complaint case but subsequently, he entered into an agreement with the land owner/complainant for development of the land in the name of ”Khushi Construction”. 24. If the complaint and connected materials are taken on their face value, it can be said that it was doubtful as to whether the complainant would have entered into an agreement with the petitioner no.1, if he knew that the newly brought in persons would have a lion's share of the profit and the petitioner no.1 with whom the respondent/complainant had entered into the agreement would have a minuscule share of the property, practically rendering him irrelevant. 25. The provisions of Sections 318 (4)/223/61 of the BNS , 2023 may be reproduced herein below – Upon perusing the entire materials available at this stage and hearing the learned counsels for the parties, I come to the considered view that – (i) That the materials available with regard to the criminal litigation prima facie might justify adjudication by criminal court; ii) On perusal of these materials, it cannot be said prima facie that no criminal offences whatsoever are made out, despite existence of a connected civil litigation; iii) The projections in the complaint and connected materials reveal triable issues by a criminal court. 26. In view of such considered opinion, I hold that there is no sufficient merit in the case of the petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in entirety by invoking the inherent powers under the law of criminal proceeding. 27. In other words, in the given facts and circumstances, in my considered finding that there would not be sufficient justification for quashing the criminal proceedings altogether in exercise of inherent powers. 28. 27. In other words, in the given facts and circumstances, in my considered finding that there would not be sufficient justification for quashing the criminal proceedings altogether in exercise of inherent powers. 28. Accordingly, the instant criminal petition is found devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed and disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 29. The order of interim stay shall automatically stand vacated.