Result - Both the Writ Petitions stand rejected.

S.S. Shinde, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Both these Writ Petitions are filed praying therein for quashing the First Information Report bearing Crime No.425 of 2016 registered with the M.I.D.C., CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, dated 5th November 2016, therefore same are heard together and being disposed of by the common Judgment and Order.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.170 of 2017 submits that, even if the allegations in the First Information Report (for short "FIR") are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, an ingredients of alleged offences have not been attracted. He submits that the allegations in the FIR reflects the issue of civil nature. It is further submitted that the transaction is a contractual issue, and in fact there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner Sanjay Srivastava and Respondent No.2. The basic elements and ingredients of Section 420 and/or Section 406 of the I.P. Code are not made out by Respondent No.2 against the Petitioner Sanjay Srivastava. The offence is registered against the Petitioner Sanjay Srivastava to avoid the further payment of Rs.75,000/- as per agreement dated 4th March 2016. The dispute between the parties is of civil nature and the FIR is filed with ulterior motive to get back the non refundable amount by pressurizing the Petitioner by filing criminal complaint, which is contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 4th March 2016. It is further submitted that a civil lis is being criminalized by Respondent No.2 by misusing the powers and authority vested under law. A false case and investigation has been commenced against the company and the Petitioner at the instance of said Mr. Raju Lalchand Mankani (Respondent No.2) who wants to illegally extort money from KHR Hospitality India Limited which he is not entitled to. It is submitted that this is an attempt to pressurize the Petitioner and company into refunding the amount of Rs.4,25,000/- from the company and impede the process of recovery of Rs.75,000/-. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 Raju Lalchand Mankani in an attempt to mislead the police and create undue pressure on the company, has filed the said false complaint/FIR. The FIR is lodged at police station at Aurangabad, which has no jurisdiction to investigate the FIR.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.170 of 2017 further submits that the informant, in order to prove offence of cheating, is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. In support of aforesaid contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of V.Y. Jose and another vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2009) 3 S.C.C. 78 and also in the case of Dalip Kaur and others vs. Jagnar Singh and another, A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 3191. He further pressed into service exposition of law by the Supreme Court in the case of G. Sagar Suri and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 2 S.C.C. 636 and submits that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Sanjay Srivastava, relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein, annexures thereto and the Judgments referred herein above, submits that the Petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.101 of 2017 Ashok Lal s/o Gurubaksh Lal, in addition to arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No.170 of 2017, submits tha