JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Garhwa in Complaint case no. 1664 of 2021 whereby the learned Magistrate has found the prima facie case for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468, 471, 504 of IPC as also the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Cr. Revision no. 41 of 2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa. 3. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have created a false document purported to be a sale deed executed by the mother of the complainant in favour of the petitioners and the petitioner no. 2 is the husband of the petitioner no. 3. There is also allegation that the petitioners intentionally insulted the complainant to provoke him causing breach of peace. On the basis of the complaint, statement on solemn affirmation, statement of the complainant of the enquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate, has found prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 504 of IPC. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that 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. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But if an essentially civil dispute is given a cloak of criminal offence, then only, in such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court. It is next submitted that complainant has filed O.S. no. 148 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. It is next submitted that complainant has filed O.S. no. 148 of 2022. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Usha Chakraborty & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135 , in para 21 of which, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that as the factual position of that case revealed that dispute is essentially of civil nature and the respondents of that case, gave a cloak of criminal offence to essentially a civil dispute, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, quashed the FIR. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in this case also, the dispute is essentially a civil dispute., hence, the prayer as prayed for in the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, be allowed. 6. Learned Addl. P.P appearing for the State and learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners. it is submitted by learned counsel for the opp. party no. 2 that this is out and out a case of creation of the false document by the petitioners as the complainant before filing the complaint has got the handwriting appearing on the purported sale deed, claimed to have been executed by the mother of the complainant, by the petitioners by a private hand writing expert and the scientific opinion goes to show that in fact, the mother of the complainant has not signed the sale deed which the petitioners are claiming to have been purportedly executed by the mother of the complainant, hence, it is submitted that this is a civil dispute having criminal texture, as has been observed in para 12 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (supra), hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners who have committed a serious offence of forging the sale deed, ought not be nipped at the bud, by quashing the same. 7. It is next summited that the petitioners filed Cr. Rev. no. (supra), hence, it is submitted that at this nascent stage, the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioners who have committed a serious offence of forging the sale deed, ought not be nipped at the bud, by quashing the same. 7. It is next summited that the petitioners filed Cr. Rev. no. 41 of2022 challenging the order taking cognizance before learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa which was dismissed on merit but without pointing out any shortcoming in the said order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Cr. Rev. no. 41 of 2022, by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa, casually a prayer was inserted by way of amendment to quash the said order also, hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this court after going through the material in record, has no hesitation in holding that the dispute between the parties, is not essentially a civil dispute. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioners are claiming the ownership of the land which admittedly belongs to the mother of the complainant, on the basis of the sale deed purportedly executed by the mother of the complainant. The undisputed fact remains that a private handwriting expert, after comparison of the two signatures i.e. the admitted signature of the mother of the complainant and the disputed signature of the mother of the complainant, appearing on the sale deed on the basis of which the petitioner are claiming ownership of the land concerned, purportedly claimed by the petitioner, to have been executed by the mother of the complainant, was found to be not, the signatures, of the same person, or in other words, the signature of the mother of the complainant, purportedly put by the mother of the complainant, in the sale deed, on the basis of which the petitioners are claiming the ownership of the property, is not the signature of the mother of the complainant. Therefore, this is out and out a case of creation of false document by the petitioners. Therefore, this is out and out a case of creation of false document by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considering view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding at this nascent stage; in view of serious allegation against the petitioners that they have forged the signature of the mother of the complainant on the sale deed purportedly, executed by the said mother of the complainant. 9. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to quash the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order dated 21.04.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Garhwa in Complaint case no. 1664 of 2021 and the order dated 20.12.2022 passed in Cr. Revision no. 41 of 2022 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Garhwa. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed.