ORDER : 1. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the accused/petitioners with a prayer to quash the F.I.R. No.167/2021 (Annexure-1) registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 427, 380, 354, 354-D & Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and all the consequential proceedings. 2. Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Banwari Singh, Advocate appearing for the accused/petitioners submits that he does not want to press the petition qua Petitioner No.3-Vipin Barthuniya. 3. In view of the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, qua petitioner No.3-Vipin Barthuniya, is dismissed as not pressed. 4. The present criminal miscellaneous petition is now being considered on merits qua petitioners No.1 and 2, Ashok Yogi &Pradeep Kumar Suman. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been implicated in this case on false and fabricated facts. He also submits that the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki (now deceased), who was holding a will in his favour with regard to the premises in question, executed a rent deed (Annexure-2) on 26.06.2021 in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi to which petitioner No.2-Pradeep Kumar Suman, is a witness. 6. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that petitioner No.1- Ashok Yogi is in possession of the property in question on the basis of the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that there are no allegations against the petitioners of preparing any forged will. It is also submitted that co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki, in whose favour, there was a will of the premises in question, filed a suit on 11.08.2021, for declaration and permanent injunction. Thereafter, the complainant-respondent had lodged the impugned F.I.R. on 25.08.2021, quoting an incident of 14.08.2021, mentioning therein false and fabricated facts with regard to the allegations against the petitioners. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the complainant/respondent herself had filed a suit on 11.01.2024, with a challenge to the alleged will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki and so also the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi. 9. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the complainant/respondent herself had filed a suit on 11.01.2024, with a challenge to the alleged will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki and so also the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that since issue as regards the genuineness of the will executed by Om Prakash in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki and so also the rent deed executed by Dinesh Kumar Solanki in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi, to which petitioner No.2-Pradeep Kumar Suman is a witness, is the subject matter of civil suits which now cannot be looked into by the police in an investigation of a criminal case. 10. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the lodging of a criminal case so as to settle a civil dispute by resorting to the criminal proceedings and to create pressure upon them, is a severe misuse of process of law. 11. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has referred the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in “ Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ” (2013)11 Supreme Court Cases 673. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Pradeep Singh, counsel appearing for the complainant submits that Dinesh Kumar Solanki (now dead) in conspiracy with petitioner No.1-Ajay Yogi & petitioner No.2 Pradeep Kumar Suman, had prepared a forged will dated 16.08.1989, so as to take possession of the premises in question. He further submits that the signatures of one Om Prakash (on the will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki) are also forged. 13. Counsel appearing for the complainant also submits that the police during investigation has found allegations against the petitioners to be proved and, therefore, the prayer for quashing the F.I.R., is liable to be rejected. 14. Counsel for the complainant further submits that the rent deed in favour of petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi, to which Pradeep Kumar Suman is a witness, is also legally not sustainable for the very reason that Dinesh Kumar Solanki was not having lawful title of the premises. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after thorough investigation, the allegations against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 448, 427, 120-B of I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(f), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, have been found to be proved. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that after thorough investigation, the allegations against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 448, 427, 120-B of I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(f), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, have been found to be proved. He further submits that co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki has expired on 29.03.2024 and, therefore, the investigation qua Dinesh Kumar Solanki, was dropped. 16. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record made available before this Court including the plaints of both the civil suits filed by both the parties. 17. The basic allegation against the petitioners is that they in conspiracy with Dinesh Kumar Solanki (since deceased) under the garb of a forged will dated 16.08.1989 and a rent deed dated 26.06.2021, illegally took possession of the premises of which the complainant is the lawful owner. 18. During investigation, no allegation of forgery is found to be proved against the petitioners, as is evident from the factual report dated 04.09.2024, placed before this Court by learned Public Prosecutor, which is taken on record. 19. The will dated 16.08.1989 (Annexure-R-5), executed by Om Prakash Solanki, in favour of the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki is there on record. 20. Counsel appearing for the complainant-respondent has raised an issue that the said will is forged, as signatures of Om Prakash on the said will are not genuine. 21. During investigation, as per the status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, no allegation of forgery has been found proved as regards the will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki. 22. It is also to be seen that the complainant herself had filed a suit on 11.01.2024, which is pending before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Kota with the following prayers:- 23. As per the claims of the suit, the complainant herself has admitted the possession of the petitioners over the premises and has also made a prayer that the will dated 16.08.1989 and the rent deed dated 26.06.2021, be declared as null and void. It has also been prayed that the defendants in the suit i.e. petitioners in the present petition, be restrained from alienating the premises to any other party. The averments made in the petition, so also the prayer clause, clearly speaks that the petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi is in actual possession of the premises, though the same is now being disputed. 24. It has also been prayed that the defendants in the suit i.e. petitioners in the present petition, be restrained from alienating the premises to any other party. The averments made in the petition, so also the prayer clause, clearly speaks that the petitioner No.1-Ashok Yogi is in actual possession of the premises, though the same is now being disputed. 24. The issue as regards the genuineness of the will and the rent deed is a subject matter of the civil suit which is pending for adjudication to be decided after leading evidence by both the parties and thus at this stage it cannot be said that the will in favour of Dinesh Kumar Solanki is a forged document because there is no any F.S.L. report obtained by the police during investigation suggesting that the signatures of Om Prakash on the alleged will are forged. 25. The facts also disclose that the co-accused Dinesh Kumar Solanki (now dead) who as per the alleged will dated 16.08.1989 is a lawful owner, of the premises has filed a suit before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Kota for seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The said suit was filed on 11.08.2021 and thereafter, the complainant had lodged the F.I.R. on 25.08.2021, wherein the alleged incident is cited to be of 14.08.2021. The aforesaid facts also reveal that the F.I.R. has been lodged to settle the issue outside the Court by way of police intervention, knowing fully well that the matter is sub judice before a Civil Court. 26. Hon’ble Apex Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) in Para Nos.12 & 13 has observed as under:- “12. 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. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court. 13. As we have already noted, here the dispute is essentially about the profit of the hotel business and its ownership. The pending civil suit will take care of all those issues. The allegation that forged and fabricated documents are used by the appellant can also be dealt with in the said suit. Respondent 2's attempt to file similar complaint against the appellant having failed, he has filed the present complaint. The appellant has been acquitted in another case filed by Respondent 2 against him alleging offence under Section 406 IPC. Possession of the shop in question has also been handed over by the appellant to Respondent 2. In such a situation, in our opinion, continuation of the pending criminal proceedings would be abuse of the process of law. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.” 27. Hon’ble Apex Court in “ State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.” [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335] , has laid down certain principles as regards quashing of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings. In this regard, the extract of Para No.102 of the judgment is reproduced below: “102. The High Court was wrong in holding otherwise.” 27. Hon’ble Apex Court in “ State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.” [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335] , has laid down certain principles as regards quashing of F.I.R. and criminal proceedings. In this regard, the extract of Para No.102 of the judgment is reproduced below: “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 give 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 com-plaint 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. (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. (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 malafide 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.” 28. Looking to the averments made in the First Information Report and so also the other facts as regards the execution of the will, rent deed and the existence of pending civil suits by both the parties against each other, it is discernible that the averments made in the First Information Report do not constitute any cognizable offence against the petitioners. 29. The dispute as regards the premises in question is pending before the Civil Court in the form of a civil suits filed by both the parties against each other and despite that the complainant party now is trying to settle that issue concerned by way of these criminal proceedings, which in the opinion of this Court is a severe misuse of the process of law. 30. In view of the discussions made herein above, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and thus, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the accused/petitioners deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. 31. 30. In view of the discussions made herein above, this is a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction and thus, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by the accused/petitioners deserves to be allowed and is accordingly, allowed. 31. The F.I.R. No.167/2021 (Annexure-1) registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota City, District Kota for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 380, 354, 354-D & Section 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is quashed and all other consequential proceedings pursuant thereto, are quashed and set-aside. 32. In view of the order passed in the main petition, stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.