JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.P. Thaker, J.

1. Rule. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent-State.

2. By way of present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs.

(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to comply with the order dated 5-7-2017 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 4653 of 2017.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to register the F.I.R. upon the complaint dated 16-5-2017 and also to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash the 'Samaj Yadi' dated 30-7-2017 issued by the respondent No. 2.

3. According to the petitioner, he had filed the complaint before the concerned police authority, who has not registered his F.I.R. According to him, pursuant to mat, he had preferred Special Criminal Application No. 4653 of 2017 which came to be disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to look into the complaint and determine whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the order of this Court, respondent No. 2 was supposed to look into the complaint and determine whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. But instead of determining as to whether any cognizable offence is made out or not, the Police Sub-Inspector has simply issued a 'Samaj Yadi' stating that the matter is pertaining to the civil dispute, and therefore, the applicant should approach disappropriate Civil Court for the appropriate remedy. It is also contended by the petitioner that due to non-compliance of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid Special Criminal Application, he had moved another application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 21246 of 2017 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh application. According to him, his application for initiation of criminal proceedings refers to the cognizable offence, and therefore, the F.I.R. ought to have been registered by the concerned police authority, but the police authority has not registered his complaint, whereas, the complaint has been registered on the same facts. He has prayed to allow the present petition.

4. The respondent No. 2-original complainant has filed the affidavit-in-reply wherein he has categorically stated that the matter is pertaining to the civil dispute and the petitioner herein has received the entire consideration amount of sale of the property and due to rise in the price of the land, the intention of the petitioner is to get more money and with this intention, he wants to register the F.I.R: It is also stated that in fact, one F.I.R. came to be lodged by the complainant namely Ratilal Ranchhodbhai Patel against the present petitioner and other persons being C.R. No. I-121 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code wherein it was alleged that the petitioner is in habit of executing the general Power of Attorney in favour of the many persons for the same land. According to him, the dispute is of civil nature and tried to give criminal colour. It is also stated that the preliminary inquiry reveals that no any cognizable offence is committed, and therefore, decision was taken not to register the F.I.R. It is also stated that the petitioner can certainly be moved before the learned Magistrate and filed private complaint under Sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On all these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the present petition.

5. Heard Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State at length. Perused the material placed on record.

6. Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of