JUDGMENT : ANJAN MONI KALITA, J. Heard Mr. B. K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned APP, for the respondent No. 2-State of Assam. 2. The instant application under Section 528 of BNSS , 2023, has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the criminal proceeding in C.R. Case No. 572/2023, filed under Section 406 /420/468/504/506 of I.P.C., pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, (JMFC), Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 3. The gist of the case is that, the opposite party No. 1, namely, Smti. Usha Rani Baishya filed a complaint dated 12.06.2023 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Kamrup (M), Guwahati, alleging, inter alia that the deceased husband Late Hangsha Nath Baishya of the opposite party No. 1 had two self-acquired immovable properties at Guwahati, namely, one plot at Christian Basti and the other plot at Nabin Nagar, Zoo Road; that before the death of aforesaid Hangsha Nath Baishya in 2017, the accused petitioner persuaded his father to transfer the property at Christian Basti to his name with a false commitment of taking care of his parents at their old age; accordingly, a “SALE DEED” dated 14.02.2012, was executed between the accused petitioner and Late Hangsha Nath Baishya and the complainant (Opposite Party No. 1); it was alleged that the accused person mislead his parents by converting the “ GIFT DEED” into a “ SALE DEED”. 4. It was alleged that the accused petitioner being an unemployed person, without having any source of income, started collecting rent from the tenants from the house located at the aforesaid plot of land; that after death of her husband, the opposite party No. 1 was never looked after by the accused petitioner and she had to manage herself by cooking her own food at her old age. 5. 5. It was further alleged in the complaint that the opposite party No. 1 had a self-acquired property in Betkuchi along with a RCC building, Guwahati; that the opposite party No. 1, by way of a Registered Gift Deed dated 06.03.2021, transferred the aforesaid plot of land voluntarily to her youngest son, Sri Pranab Jyoti Baishya; that aforesaid Sri Pranab Jyoti Baishya built a 2 BHK room in the ground floor in the aforesaid property at Betkuchi and he whenever, visits Guwahati from Bengaluru, he used to stay there. 6. It was alleged that the opposite party No. 1, after obtaining an N.O.C, built a R.C.C building on the Betkuchi plot of land. That the accused petitioner with mala fide intention procured an N.O.C from the opposite party No. 1 for building a R.C.C building on the same Betkuchi land. 7. It was alleged that the complainant for construction of the R.C.C building at Betkuchi enticed the opposite party No. 1 to take a loan jointly with the accused petitioner; that the aforesaid Pranab Jyoti Baishya, who is the youngest son of opposite party came to Guwahati from Bengaluru on his father’s death on 04.10.2017 and when he got to know about the construction of the R.C.C building and the joint loan taken by the accused petitioner along with the opposite party, he felt a big conspiracy by the accused petitioner to grab the property at Betkuchi. 8. It was alleged that, in fact, the accused petitioner had procured the N.O.C from the opposite party without her knowledge as she is not conversant with English, and thereby, conspired to grab the plot of land at Betkuchi; that the aforesaid Pranab Jyoti Baisha, discovered that the loan jointly taken by the accused petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 was, in fact, misappropriated by the accused petitioner by transferring the amount to his own account. 9. It was alleged that the aforesaid Pranab Jyoti Baishya, realizing the conspiracy that was hatched by the accused petitioner, helped her mother by paying the balance amount of Rs. 3,70,416.00 (Rupees Three lakhs seventy thousand four hundred sixteen) against the aforesaid land and took back the mortgaged land documents from the Bank. 10. 9. It was alleged that the aforesaid Pranab Jyoti Baishya, realizing the conspiracy that was hatched by the accused petitioner, helped her mother by paying the balance amount of Rs. 3,70,416.00 (Rupees Three lakhs seventy thousand four hundred sixteen) against the aforesaid land and took back the mortgaged land documents from the Bank. 10. It was alleged that the evil design of conspiracy of the accused petitioner to cheat the opposite party No. 1 and his siblings came to the light when the opposite party No. 1 and his siblings were served notices of Title Suit, registered as T.S. No. 23/2018, filed by the accused petitioner; that the accused petitioner also filed an FIR against the opposite party No. 1 and the aforesaid Pranab Jyoti Baishya (youngest brother) for harassing them and for creating disturbance in the Betkuchi property. 11. It was alleged that the opposite party is an old lady, who deserves to be loved and care and maintained by her son who lives in the same house, however, she was not loved or cared by the accused petitioner. In spite of the fact that, his other siblings, namely, Pranab Jyoti Baishya and Hemanta Kumar Baishya live in other parts of India, whereas, sister Smti. Sabita Patgiri, lives in a different place in her matrimonial home. 12. In view of the aforesaid allegations made in the complaint, the opposite party No. 1, sought justice, by praying for taking action against the petitioner under various provisions of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . 13. After receipt of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1, the JMFC, Kamup (M) registered the case i.e. C.R. No. 572/2023. Thereafter, the learned JMFC, recorded the statement of the opposite party No. 1 as well as the witnesses, namely, Pranab Jyoti Baishya and Ajit Kalita under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. On perusal of the statements and other materials on record, finding a prima facie case against the accused petitioner under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC, as per order dated 18.05.2024, took the cognizance of the offences and issued summon to the accused petitioner to appear before the JMFC, in C.R. Case No. 572/2023. 14. 14. The accused petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid cognizance taken by the JMFC, Kamrup (M), has filed this petition assailing the cognizance order and prayed for quashing the criminal proceeding in C.R. Case No. 572/2023, under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner, submitted that all the allegations made in the aforesaid C.R. Case are of civil nature and there are several civil proceedings already pending in various Courts. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed Title Suit No. 692/2022 with Misc. J. Case No. 1067/2022 for cancellation of the gift deed dated 16.03.2021, before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M). He submitted that the petitioner has also filed a Title Suit No. 23/2018 with Misc. (J). Case No. 378/2018, which was rejected by the trial court. He submitted that, the petitioner, thereafter, approached the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court by filling an Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 3425/2019 in RFA (SL. No.)13840/2019, for allowing the petitioner to file a fresh suit and, thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh suit, namely, T.S. No. 287/2020 with Misc. (J). Case No. 309/2020, for declaration of possessory right over the suit land. It was further stated that the aforesaid suit was rejected by the trial court and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a First Appeal No. 60/2020 before this Court, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court and, thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court, vide R.F.A No. 60/2020, which was also dismissed by this Hon’ble Court. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner thereafter, preferred an S.L.P, vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 26227/2023, before the Hon’ble Apex Court of India and the same is now pending disposal before the Apex Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the aforesaid filing of the civil suits show that the allegations made in the complaint by the opposite party No. 1 are all of civil nature and the necessary elements for offences under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC are not at all present there. 17. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 is full of false and fabricated statements and the same do not disclose any offences under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC. 17. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 is full of false and fabricated statements and the same do not disclose any offences under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC. He further submitted that the statements made by the opposite party No. 1 and other witnesses in C.R. No. 572/2023 before the JMFC, Kamrup (M), do not disclose any prima facie case under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC, for continuance of the said proceeding before the Court of JMFC, Kamrup (M), in C.R. No. 572/2023. Therefore, he submitted that the instant petition may be allowed by this Court, by quashing the proceedings in the C.R. No. 572/2023 pending before the JMFC, Kamrup (M). 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a proceeding under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC, the most necessary element of cheating, forgery for purpose of cheating, criminal intimidation must be present, which results into an inducement to deliver the property resulting into a loss or destruction of property to the person, who have been induced to deliver such property. However, in the instant case, there is no such loss of property to the opposite party No. 1. He submitted that by taking cognizance of the matter in C.R. No. 572/2023, the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), has actually abused the judicial process. He submitted that the complaint has been filed by the opposite party No. 1, with ulterior motive and in collusion with her other son, to deprive the accused petitioner of his legal right over the aforesaid landed properties. He submitted that there is no element of criminal intimidation in the alleged acts committed by the accused petitioner. 19. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the instant petition may be allowed by this Court by quashing the aforesaid proceeding pending in C.R. Case No. 572/2023, pending before the JMFC, Kamrup (M). To strengthen his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited the case namely, Naresh Kumar & Another Vs. The State of Karnataka & Another, decided on 12.03.2024, in connection with SLP (Criminal) No. 1570/2021 wherein, the Apex Court has held that when there is no criminal element in the complaint and the complaint is essentially of civil in nature, the complaint is liable to be quashed. The State of Karnataka & Another, decided on 12.03.2024, in connection with SLP (Criminal) No. 1570/2021 wherein, the Apex Court has held that when there is no criminal element in the complaint and the complaint is essentially of civil in nature, the complaint is liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited another case i.e. Dr. Sonia Verma & Another Vs. The State of Haryana & Another, decided by the Apex Court on 07.03.2024, in connection with Criminal Appeal No. 1433 of 2024, wherein also the same principle, i.e., if the compliant does not disclose any criminal element, the complaint is liable to be quashed, was upheld by the Apex Court. 20. In view of the judicial pronouncements, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner, submitted that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the High Court is to be cautious and need to consider, whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not. He submitted that the complaint discloses civil transactions, without having any criminal element, needs to be quashed. 21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 1 are of serious nature which involve cheating and criminal intimidation. He submitted that the facts as narrated in utmost detail in the complaint revealed that a well thought conspiracy had been hatched by the accused petitioner to grab the landed properties, which belonged to his parents and thereby, depriving the opposite party No. 1 as well as his siblings. He wanted to grab the whole landed properties for himself. He submitted that the complaint discloses the elements of fraud in converting the “gifted deed” to the “sale deed” as well as getting the N.O.Cs from his mother and his siblings for constructions of a house by misrepresenting various facts. He further submitted that the house loan as mentioned in the complaint was though taken by him along with this mother, the accused petitioner never paid back the loan, which was ultimately had to be repaid by the brother of the accused petitioner to save his old mother. 22. He further submitted that the house loan as mentioned in the complaint was though taken by him along with this mother, the accused petitioner never paid back the loan, which was ultimately had to be repaid by the brother of the accused petitioner to save his old mother. 22. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 further submitted that the accused petitioner with his mischievous character constructed the house in the Betkuchi land, which was, in fact, gifted to the brother of the accused person i.e. Pranab Jyoti Baishya and thereby, started collecting rent by letting the same on rent. He submitted that when the aforesaid facts came to the light of brother of the accused petitioner, the brother, i.e. Pranab Jyoti Baisha took the required action. He submitted that though the landed properties actually belonged to the opposite party No. 1 and her late husband, the accused petitioner by fraudulent means, wanted to grab those properties. He submitted that though the opposite party No. 1, is the mother of the accused petitioner, who is an old lady, the accused petitioner did not care to look after her, rather he forced her to live alone in the house built by her husband. He submitted that the opposite party No. 1 was forced to file the complaint, without having any other choice, as otherwise, the whole landed properties would be grabbed illegally by the accused petitioner depriving her as well as her other children. 23. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the criminal activities of the accused petitioner are apparent in the complaint and therefore, though there are certain cases of civil nature pending before various Courts, the same cannot be a ground for setting aside and quashing of the complaint. 24. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, to buttress his argument that a criminal case is not barred under the law, though there are civil disputes between the parties, he cited a case namely, A. M. Mohan Vs. 24. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, to buttress his argument that a criminal case is not barred under the law, though there are civil disputes between the parties, he cited a case namely, A. M. Mohan Vs. The State Represented By SHO and Another , decided on 20.03.2024 in connection with SLP (Criminal No.) 9598/2022, by the Apex Court, wherein, it has been held that a given set of facts may make out : (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. Therefore, the Apex Court held that the test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 25. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the complaint in the instant case clearly discloses criminal elements and therefore, though there are some civil disputes pending between the parties, the same cannot be a bar for the courts to take cognizance of the criminal case. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1, further submitted that, in fact, the civil suits filed by the accused petitioner against the opposite party No. 1, have been dismissed by various Courts and one of the case is pending in the Supreme Court after the same was dismissed by the trial court as well as the High Court. In view of the aforesaid submissions, he submitted that the instant petition may not be entertained and dismissed. 26. This Court has also heard the learned Additional PP, who submitted that the elements of cheating and fraud are apparent in the complaint and the materials available in the TCR disclose prima facie allegations against the accused petitioner. 27. He further submitted that the incident of taking N.O.C from the sister of the accused petitioner at the time when he wanted to construct a house in the landed property belonging to the opposite party No. 1, makes it clear that the accused petitioner did not want to take any chances. 27. He further submitted that the incident of taking N.O.C from the sister of the accused petitioner at the time when he wanted to construct a house in the landed property belonging to the opposite party No. 1, makes it clear that the accused petitioner did not want to take any chances. He submitted that the concerned property belonged to the opposite party No. 1 and there was no occasion for taking any N.O.C from the daughter of the accused No. 1, which is not required as per law. Therefore, he submitted that the facts depict a prima facie conspiracy hatched by the accused petitioner to grab the landed properties and thereby deceive and cheat his mother as well as his brothers and sister. In view of the aforesaid, he submitted that the instant petition is liable to be rejected by this Court. 28. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and has also considered the various materials before this Court. This Court has also carefully gone through the trial court records received. From the factual matrix, it is apparent that there are some existing disputes between the contesting parties. It is also a fact that the two disputed landed properties actually belonged to the opposite party No.1 and her husband. It is seen that the landed property which belonged to the opposite party No. 1 and her husband, was transferred to the accused petitioner while the husband of the opposite party No. 1 was alive. However, as far as the landed property situated at Betkuchi is concerned, the property solely belonged to the opposite party No. 1, and this Court finds it difficult to understand why the same plot of land will be allowed to be used by the accused petitioner, due to the fact that, the accused petitioner had already been given the landed property situated at Christian Basti. Further due to the fact that, the accused petitioner has other siblings and as to why, the opposite party No. 1 would deprive her other children. However, this court has to go by the records brought before this court. 29. Further due to the fact that, the accused petitioner has other siblings and as to why, the opposite party No. 1 would deprive her other children. However, this court has to go by the records brought before this court. 29. It is seen from the statements recorded before the trial court of the opposite party No. 1, Pranab Jyoti Baishya (the younger son) and Ajit Kalita (the maternal uncle of the accused petitioner) that there are allegations of fraudulently taking the signature of the opposite party No. 1 by the accused petitioner for constructing a building in the land situated at Betkuchi. The aforesaid maternal uncle had also deposed that the aforesaid land was, in fact, gifted to Pranab Jyoti Baishya, the younger son of the opposite party No. 1. 30. It is seen from the “deed of gift” dated 06.03.2021, executed by the opposite party No. 1, in favour of Sri. Pranab Jyoti Baishya (the younger son of the opposite party No. 1), that the landed property situated at Betkuchi, Beltola, was in fact, gifted to Sri. Pranab Jyoti Baishya, by his mother, opposite party No. 1. 31. It is also seen that the aforesaid property in Betkuchi has been transferred to Sri. Pranab Jyoti Baishya, by the opposite party No. 1, after obtaining the required N.O.Cs form the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, as well as Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, (GMDA). It is also seen that vide one N.O.C dated 10.02.2014, issued by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA), the opposite party No. 1 was permitted to construct a house in the property situated at Betkuchi. 32. It is also seen that, by way of an affidavit signed by the opposite party No. 1, she had declared that, she did not have any objection if her son i.e. accused petitioner constructs a residential R.C.C building on her land situated at Betkuchi. Another affidavit signed by the opposite party No. 1, dated 07.08.2014, show that she made a statement, i.e. she didn’t have any objection, if her son, accused petitioner constructs a residential R.C.C building over her plot of land by taking a loan by mortgaging the documents relating to the aforesaid property. Another affidavit signed by the opposite party No. 1, dated 07.08.2014, show that she made a statement, i.e. she didn’t have any objection, if her son, accused petitioner constructs a residential R.C.C building over her plot of land by taking a loan by mortgaging the documents relating to the aforesaid property. However, it could not be understood the necessity of making an affidavit by the accused petitioner stating that he did not have any objection, if the aforesaid land, i.e. land located at Betkuchi was mortgaged to Indian Bank for availing a loan. It is also seen that the other brother of the accused petitioner, i.e. Sri Hemanta Kumar Baishya had made an affidavit, wherein, he had stated that he did not have any objection if his brother takes a loan by mortgaging the plot of land, i.e. the Betkuchi land through Indian Bank for construction of RCC building. It is also seen that another affidavit dated 17.10.2014, was made by one, Sri Sabita Patgiri, the daughter of the opposite party No. 1 making a statement that she did not have any objection in accused petitioner, mortgaging the land to any financial institute for procuring a loan for construction of a R.C.C building by her brother, accused petitioner. 33. From the aforesaid documents that have been brought on record, it revealed that the allegations made in the complaint dated 16.10.2023, were, in fact, if at all happened, many years ago, i.e. in 2014, it is not understood why it took so many years for the opposite party No. 1 to file the complaint. It is also seen from the complaint that though the complaint is a lengthy complaint, full of allegations, that the allegations are vague. Though there are allegations of fraud, which were supposed to have been committed long time back. A plain reading of the materials before this Court, prima facie do not make the allegations criminal, rather the allegations seem to be of civil in nature having civil remedies. The disputes apparently, seem to be civil disputes, though there is an attempt to make them look like criminal. The Apex Court in a catena of cases, including the case laws that have been cited by the counsel for the accused petitioner, have settled the principle that civil disputes cannot be made criminal offences only by alleging some fake allegations. 34. The Apex Court in a catena of cases, including the case laws that have been cited by the counsel for the accused petitioner, have settled the principle that civil disputes cannot be made criminal offences only by alleging some fake allegations. 34. The Supreme Court has held that a complaint can be quashed, where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken on the face value and accepted in the entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence, or make out the case alleged against the accused. It has also been held that the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations, neither a detailed enquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the materials nor an assessment of the reliability of genuineness of the allegations in the complaint is warranted, while examining the prayer for quashing a complaint. It has also been held by the Apex Court in a catena of cases, that a complaint can be quashed, where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, or when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for taking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently false, prima facie. However, the Apex Court has also pointed out that the power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used with abundant caution. 35. In the instant case, though there are allegations of cheating and inducement committed by the accused petitioner, from the materials before this Court, prima facie, the same could not be made out. It is apparent that the affidavits signed by the elder brother and sister of the accused petitioner, who are educated persons do not prima facie reveal any inducement from the part of the accused petitioner to cheat his siblings or the opposite party No. 1. The materials available on records, prima facie showed that the RCC building situated in the Betkuchi land, was in fact, constructed by the accused petitioner, may be with the help of the loan that he procured by taking a loan jointly with the opposite party No. 1. It is also seen that the property has been rented out to various tenants and the accused petitioner had been collecting the rent. It is also seen that the property has been rented out to various tenants and the accused petitioner had been collecting the rent. This fact is revealed from the FIR filed by the tenants, wherein the tenants alleged that the opposite party No. 1 and her son, Sri. Pranab Jyoti Baishya, obstructed them from staying in their rented premises as well as harassing them by collecting rent from them. It is also not understandable why the “gift deed” dated 06.03.2021 was made by the opposite party No. 1 in favour of Sri Pranab Jyoti Baishya, the younger son of the opposite party No. 1, when the opposite party herself along with her another son and daughter had permitted the accused petitioner to construct the R.C.C building there. Infact, nothing is before this court to show any resistance from opposite party No.1 and other siblings against the accused petitioner in constructing the R.C.C building and thereafter letting the place for rent. 36. This Court, without being going much into the merits of the disputes, after due consideration of all the materials before it, is of the prima facie opinion that the allegations made in the complaint are wide and vague and do not really show any criminal element, rather those allegations are basically of civil nature. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is successful in making up a prima facie case for setting aside and quashing the proceeding in C.R. Case No. 572/2023, under Sections 420 /468/506 of IPC, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. 37. Accordingly, the instant petition stands disposed of as allowed. Consequently, the proceedings in C.R. Case No. 572/2023, pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kamrup (M), is hereby quashed. 38. The TCR received may be send back forthwith.