Initiating criminal proceedings to settle a civil dispute constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the applicants, Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State and Mr. Kaivan K. Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2-original complainant.

2. By way of this application, the applicants herein have prayed for quashing of FIR being C.R. No.I-41 of 2016 dated 15.04.2016 registered with Siddhpur Police Station, District Patan, for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the applicants submitted that the impugned FIR fails to constitute the alleged offences against the applicants herein and that the said FIR is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the same does not disclose any cognizable offence against the applicants herein. Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the applicants also submitted that respondent No.2 while instituting the impugned complaint substrate the fact that an earlier complaint was instituted by the respondent No.2 before the Police Sub Inspector, Manjalpur, District Vadodara, leveling similar allegations wherein after preliminary inquiry, the police submitted a report stating that respondent No.2 - original complainant was not present to give his statement and that the complaint came to be filed by the respondent authority. The complaint filed by the respondent No.2 was for recovery of money and hence, the said complaint was not entertained and a closure report to the said effect came to be filed on 29.03.2016. It appears that the applicants herein gave their statements in the said preliminary inquiry on 05.03.2016 and 22.03.2016. The copy of the said reports are duly produced on record ad Annexure-C (Collectively). The facts required adjudication of the present FIR as stated by the applicants herein are stated thus:-

The respondent No.2 filed impugned FIR alleging FIR dated 15.04.2016 and stating that the respondent No.2 - original complainant started business of agro products at Nedhra village in Siddhpur District Patan. It is alleged that the respondent No.2 was in need of processing machine and therefore, the respondent No.2 contacted the applicant herein who is one of the partners of ANG Enterprice. It is also alleged in the impugned FIR that a quotation was sent for 16 machines amounting to Rs.26,73,000/- by email by the applicant herein. It is further alleged that meeting was held between the parties on 29.08.2014 and that the parties agreed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- was to be paid as down payment and allegedly on 29.08.2014 The respondent No.2 gave a cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- to the applicant herein. It is further alleged that thereafter on 27.09.2014, another cheque of Rs.5,00,000/- was also given by the respondent No.2 to the applicant herein and receipts were also issued by email. It is also alleged that though the aforesaid payment was duly paid, the machinery was not delivered to the respondent No.2 and in view of above, the applicants were told that by the respondent No.2 to refund the down payment. However, the said amount was not refunded and the machinery was also not been delivered. Resultantly, the respondent No.2 was constrained to file impugned FIR.

4. Mr. Kaivan Patel, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 - original complainant was not in a position to controvert the fact that the complaint impugned is identical to the first complaint which was filed by the respondent No.2 at Manjalpur Police Station, District : Vadodara,which is duly produced at page No.31.

5. Ms. Maithili D. Mehta, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1 - State submitted that the applicantaccused has a factory preparing machines utilised for preparing packing material, which is situated at Vadodara so the second cheque was also delivered at Vadodara and therefore, Vadodara Police Station would have the jurisdiction. Simil