Order : ANAND SHARMA, J. 1. By way of Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, the petitioner has challenged FIR No.0243/2017 dated 17.07.2017 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City (North) for alleged offence under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 192 IPC . 2. It is stated that the petitioner and complainant are real brothers and there is dispute with regard to right, interest and title in respect of plot No.A-98, Indira Verma Kachi Basti, Shastri Nagar. One scheme was launched by the State Government for issuing lease deeds to the residents of Kachi Basti on the basis of possession and accordingly grandfather of the petitioner submitted an application for allotment, however, he expired on 24.01.1996. Petitioner was residing with his grandfather and after his death, he was in sole possession of the aforesaid plot. However, ignoring claim of the petitioner, the plot was allotted to another person Ishwar Lal S/o Bhairu Lal, therefore, one suit of permanent injunction was filed by the petitioner, which was decided in favour of the petitioner vide judgment and decree dated 01.03.2008, which reveals that the dispute was with regard to aforesaid plot No.A-98 and it was categorically stated by the petitioner in the plaint that possession letter in favour of the grandfather was issued on 21.01.1988 and he was in possession of the said plot after death of his grandfather in the capacity of owner of the plot. After examining the record and evidence, decree dated 01.03.2008 was passed to the effect that the said plot may not be allotted to any other person and no interference whatsoever be made in the peaceful use and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said plot. Further, on the basis of such decree, lease deed/patta dated 18.03.2013 was issued in favour of the petitioner by Jaipur Nagar Nigam, Jaipur, which has also been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Department of Registration and Stamps. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per scheme launched by the State Government, on the basis of possession, an individual was entitled only for allotment of one plot and still, the complainant, as well as his wife and son have also been allotted different plots No.B-89, A-28 and B-81 in the same scheme and in proof thereof, copies of allotment letters have been placed on record. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier complaint with regard to getting allotment by submitting wrong affidavit was made by the Nagar Nigam, which was duly investigated by the Police Authorities and a report was submitted in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur on 23.06.2017, wherein no offence whatsoever was found to be made out against the petitioner and observation has been given that the petitioner has not filed any false affidavit whatsoever. 5. On the basis of aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that again one another impugned FIR was lodged by brother of the petitioner in quite malicious manner and only to settle personal scores by invoking provisions of criminal law with the allegation that the petitioner has got allotment of the aforesaid plot No.A-98 by submitting wrong affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the above facts and more particularly when patta/lease deed was issued in favour of the petitioner in compliance of judgment and decree passed by Civil Court, which has not been challenged by any person including the complainant, it is clear that the dispute, if any, between the family is absolutely civil in nature, for which the petitioner cannot be prosecuted and in case he is allowed to be prosecuted pursuant to impugned FIR, it would cause a sheer abuse of process of law and petitioner would suffer grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that getting allotment of plot by submitting false affidavit is a punishable offence under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 471 and 192 IPC . Even the Nagar Nigam itself, after taking legal opinion, has taken decision to cancel the plot earlier allotted to the petitioner, therefore, at this stage no interference can be made in the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It has not been disputed that judgment and decree dated 01.03.2008 passed by the competent Civil Court has not been challenged by the complainant and any other person and the same has attained the finality. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It has not been disputed that judgment and decree dated 01.03.2008 passed by the competent Civil Court has not been challenged by the complainant and any other person and the same has attained the finality. It is also not disputed that the plot in question has been allotted to the petitioner by way of issuing lease deed after passing of the aforesaid judgment and decree. It is also a matter of fact that similar FIR was earlier lodged by the Nagar Nigam against the petitioner with the same allegation of submitting false affidavit for the purpose of getting allotment, which has been closed after due investigation by the Investigation Authority with the categorically finding that no false affidavit whatsoever was filed by the petitioner. It is also a matter of record that the complainant, his wife and son have also got allotment on the basis of possession in the same colony, thus, by perusing the material on record it becomes clear that it is an internal dispute within family with regard to share of title and ownership in the aforesaid plot No.A-98. Thus, clearly the dispute is purely of civil nature, for which invoking the provisions of criminal law is nothing but malicious attempt on the part of the complainant. It is settled proposition of law that civil dispute cannot be criminalized only for the purpose of settling the personal disputes which can otherwise be adjudicated by court of civil jurisdiction. 9. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down following guidelines for the purpose of interference in the FIR :- "(102). 9. In the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid down following guidelines for the purpose of interference in the FIR :- "(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 have given 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. (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. (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." 10. In the case of Anukul Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060, recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed as under :- "17. This Court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., it was held that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process. The following paragraphs from the decision are apposite: “9. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) 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. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” 18. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” 18. Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, it was emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, this Court again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of process. 19. Most recently, in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially civil. The Court cautioned High Courts not to direct settlements in such matters but to apply the settled principles in Bhajan Lal. The following paragraphs are relevant in this context: “9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The Respondent No. 4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant - herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No. 4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant. 10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, (2024) 10 SCC 690 . In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, (2024) 10 SCC 690 . In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. 12. Why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. 13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of the process of law. 14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing anything further. If the Respondent No. 4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings. 15. 14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing anything further. If the Respondent No. 4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings. 15. We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings. What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any. The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal”, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335” 20. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the dispute- concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents-is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out. The institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides." 11. In the light of foregoing discussions and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in order to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash and set aside FIR No.0243/2017 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jaipur City (North) along with all subsequent proceedings. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed.