ORDER : The accused in Crime No.806/2020 and Crime No.1079/2020 of Njarakkal Police Station have filed these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short, ‘Cr.PC’), to quash the F.I.Rs and proceedings initiated against them consequent to the registration of the aforesaid crimes. The offences involved in Crime No.806/2020 are under Sections 379, 420, 468 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC'). In Crime No.1079/2020, the offences slapped against the petitioners are under Sections 120B, 420, 379, 448, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The de facto complainant in both these crimes, a private company represented by its authorised officer, is arraigned as the first respondent in these petitions. 2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows: An extent of 16 Acres of land in Elamkunnapuzha Village in Kochi Taluk remains under the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the first respondent company from the year 2007 onwards. Fish farming and prawn cultivation are being conducted in the aforesaid land. Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are the representatives of a Society/Samajam by name Kattachal Shrimp Farmers Samajam, Elamkunnapuzha, misrepresented themselves as the owners of the above said 16 Acres of land which belonged to the first respondent company, and illegally auctioned the products of the farming being conducted in that property, and gained unjust enrichment to the tune of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Though the authorised representative of the first respondent company questioned the above activity and demanded back the auctioned amount received by the petitioners, they did not oblige. In the month of August, 2019, the petitioners again resorted to the auction of the above land belonging to the first respondent by creating forged documents, and attempted to encroach a major portion of the said property. When the authorized representative of the first respondent company requested to stop the above illegal activities, and to hand over the income reaped out of the company’s aqua cultivation, the petitioners criminally intimidated him. Crime No.806/2020 has been registered by the Njarakkal Police consequent to a complaint preferred by the authorised representative of the first respondent company before the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, in connection with the aforesaid incident which happened in the month of August, 2020. Crime No.806/2020 has been registered by the Njarakkal Police consequent to a complaint preferred by the authorised representative of the first respondent company before the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, in connection with the aforesaid incident which happened in the month of August, 2020. Again, on 10.09.2020, when the authorised representative of the first respondent company reached the above property to start the prawn farming activities, the petitioners stopped him and prevented him from entering into the said property. There again the petitioners trespassed into the first respondent’s land, took the yield against the protest of the authorised representative of the first respondent, and criminally intimidated him. Crime No.1079/2020 was registered by the Njarakkal Police Station on the basis of a complaint preferred by the authorised representative of the first respondent company before the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, in connection with the aforesaid incident which is said to have happened on 10.09.2020. 3. As per the F.I.R registered in Crime No.806/2020, the period of commission of the offences mentioned thereunder was from 01.01.2007 to 04.06.2020. In the F.I.R registered in Crime No.1079/2020, the period of commission of the offences mentioned thereunder was from 01.01.2004 to 10.09.2020. Thus, it is apparent from the aforesaid First Information Reports registered in these cases, that the grievance of the de facto complainant pertains to their exclusion and denial of the income from the 16 Acres of land which they owned, for a continuous period of 13 to 16 years. 4. In these petitions, the petitioners would contend that the attempt of the de facto complainant is to press into service criminal proceedings as an instrument of oppression, upon the Society represented by the petitioners, as a shortcut method to bypass a civil dispute pertaining to a certain extent of land, which the de facto complainant claims to have purchased inside the 41 Acres of land belonging to the above said Society. It is further stated that none of the offences alleged in these cases are made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the petitioners, the Society which they represent was involved in shrimp farming over the 41.25 Acres of land which belonged to them right from the year 1960. It is further stated that none of the offences alleged in these cases are made out in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to the petitioners, the Society which they represent was involved in shrimp farming over the 41.25 Acres of land which belonged to them right from the year 1960. Later on, an extent of about 15 Acres of land at different parts of the above said 41.25 Acres, were sold by different property owners through 22 sale deeds executed in favour of the company of the de facto complainant. It is further stated that there were several civil litigations in connection with the demarcation and identification of those properties said to have been purchased by the de facto complainant. O.S.No.129/2014 is said to be such a suit instituted by the first respondent company against the Society represented by the petitioners, and 75 other persons for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against trespassing upon the 14 Acres and 68.287 cents of paddy land, which the first respondent company claims to have purchased as 22 plots from different persons. Thus, according to the petitioners, the crimes registered against them are the outcome of the dubious attempt of the first respondent to try whether the property dispute with the Society could be converted as a criminal case to settle scores with the Society. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. The main challenge raised by the petitioners against the maintainability of the prosecution initiated against them is that, a dispute, which is purely of civil nature, has been attempted to be converted as a criminal offence to pressurize the petitioners to meet the unlawful demands of the first respondent. By referring to Annexure-H document in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020, which is the plaint in O.S.No.129/2014 of the Munsiff Court, Kochi, filed by the first respondent against the petitioners and 75 other persons, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the contents in the above plaint itself show that the issue involved in this case is a property dispute related to the identity and demarcation of the land which the first respondent claims to have purchased during the year 2007. Again by referring to Annexure-J in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020, which is the judgment rendered by the Munsiff Court, Kochi, in the aforesaid suit, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the competent Civil Court, after a full trial, arrived at the finding that the property which the first respondent claimed on the basis of the 22 sale deeds, is not identifiable. Thus, it is argued that there is absolutely no basis for the accusations in these cases that the petitioners resorted to theft and misappropriation of the income and the products of farming from the 16 Acres of land claimed by the first respondent. 7. It is pertinent to note that, as per the pleadings to Annexure-H plaint, the landed property which the first respondent claims to have purchased, is having an extent of 14 Acres and 68.287 cents, as against the contention in these cases that the extent of the land belonging to the first respondent is about 16 Acres. So also, it is to be noted that the first respondent has conceded in Annexure-H plaint, that many other suits instituted for specific performance of the agreement for sale of certain other properties, which existed contiguously with the 14.68287 Acres of land purchased by the first respondent, happened to be dismissed for default and other technical reasons, and that appeals have been preferred against those verdicts. It is conceded by the first respondent in Annexure-H plaint that the above properties existed contiguously without any boundary marks. In Annexure-J judgment rendered by the learned Munsiff, it has been observed that the landed property claimed by the first respondent could not be located or identified, despite a local investigation conducted by an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor. For the above reason, the learned Munsiff had declined to grant the permanent prohibitory injunction which the first respondent sought in that suit to restrain the petitioners and the 75 other persons from entering into the land claimed by the first respondent, and taking yields from that property. The above indications in Annexure-H and J documents filed in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 would substantiate the contentions of the petitioners that the first respondent, who is not having possession over any land coming within the 41.25 Acres of land belonging to the Society which the petitioners represent, is trying to misuse the criminal justice system to settle scores in the civil dispute between the parties. 8. 8. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that Annexure-J judgment rendered by the Munsiff Court, Kochi, had already been challenged before the Appellate Court, and hence, the contentions raised by the first respondent cannot be found to be false, in view of the observations in the above judgment of the learned Munsiff. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the issue that matters is not whether the findings of the learned Munsiff in Annexure-J judgment have attained finality or not. On the other hand, what is relevant to be looked into, is that a dispute, which is purely of civil nature, is attempted to be projected as a criminal offence by misusing the procedures meant for the administration of criminal justice. It is apparent from Annexure-H plaint, Annexure-I written statement and Annexure-J judgment produced in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020, that the real grievance of the first respondent is their inability to have possession of the land said to have been purchased during the years 2007 to 2010, and to take yields from it. The issue in the above regard has to be resolved by taking recourse to appropriate civil remedies, and not by instituting criminal cases against the petitioners by alleging theft, cheating and criminal breach of trust. 9. As regards the offence of theft envisaged under Section 379 of the IPC, the said crime will have no existence unless it is shown that the property stolen was remaining under the possession of the complainant. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not possible to say that the act of the Society which the petitioners represent, taking yields from the property remaining under their possession, cannot be classified as theft coming under the purview of Section 379 IPC. For establishing the offence of cheating envisaged under Section 420 IPC, it is incumbent upon the complainant to show that there was dishonest inducement on the part of the offender to deliver any property, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners had fraudulently and dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security, with the intention to cheat the first respondent. In the case on hand, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioners had fraudulently and dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security, with the intention to cheat the first respondent. In that view of the matter, it has to be held that the allegations levelled by the first respondent, even if considered as uncontroverted, will not constitute the offence of cheating envisaged under Section 420 IPC. Likewise, there is no basis for the accusations of criminal breach of trust in the absence of contentions pointing to the entrustment of the property by the first respondent to the petitioners. The other allegations pertaining to wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation, also have no independent existence when the first respondent could not bring out the requisite particulars to show that the authorised representative of the first respondent company was wrongfully restrained from entering into the property which remained under their possession. Thus, it has to be concluded that the materials relied on by the first respondent, are not capable of bringing home the essential requirements of the offences alleged against the petitioners. 10. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V.Y. Jose & Anr. v. State of Gujarat [ (2009) 3 SCC 78 ] that a matter which essentially involves dispute of the civil nature should not be allowed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence, the latter being not a shortcut of executing a decree which is non-existent. It is further observed thereunder that, with a view to maintain purity in the administration of justice, the superior courts should not allow the abuse of process of court by resorting to Section 482 Cr.PC. 11. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [ (2013) 11 SCC 673 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “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. 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. 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 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 12. The law laid down in Paramjeet Batra (supra) has been followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. [2024 SCC Online SC 268] wherein it has been held in paragraph Nos.6 & 7 as follows: “6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 , this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “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. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 7. 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.” (emphasis supplied) 7. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra), this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626 , observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 13. As far as the present cases are concerned, it is apparent from the facts and circumstances of these cases that a dispute which is essentially of civil nature is attempted to be given the cloak of criminal offence, notwithstanding the fact that the essential ingredients of the offences so alleged are not brought out from the materials on record. In that view of the matter, the termination of the prosecution proceedings initiated against the petitioners, is highly necessary to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for in these petitions for quashing the proceedings against the petitioners, are found to be meritorious. In the result, both these petitions are allowed. F.I.R. Nos.806/2020 & 1079/2020 of Njarakkal Police Station, and all proceedings initiated against the petitioners consequent to the registration of the aforesaid crimes, are hereby quashed.