Misuse of criminal proceedings to pressure parties in a civil dispute is impermissible, and the court has the authority to quash proceedings if they are mala fide or constitute an abuse of the process of law.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J.

1. Prayer in this petition is for quashing of FIR No.636 dated 20.11.2010 registered under Sections 452, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Civil Lines, District Gurgaon (Annexure P1).

2. The operative part of the aforesaid FIR is reproduced as under :-

“To the SHO Sahib Police Station Civil Line Sector 15 GGN Sir, I Rakesh Bawa r/o E-708 Rail Vihar Sector 15 Part-Iind Gurgaon alongwith my wife Shashi Bawa were present at our residence on dated 08-10-10. That at about 8 O' clock at night three persons 1. Aman Makkar 2. Pardeep Chawla 3. Sanjay Kapoor residents of Delhi entered forcibly in my house and started abusing and all three said that you will be cut into pieces and you will be killed and Aman pushed me after holding my hand. I dialed at No.100 to the police after going in my room. My wife went to call my neighbor Ashok Tyagi. Ashok Tyagi came at my residence and said to all three persons to go now from there with folded hands and by touching the feet and to come tomorrow. I will get your matter decided. Who remained there and said that we will remain here and 10-12 more persons would be called. In the meantime, the police came and those three persons were brought in the Police Station. In the Police Station SHO Sahib called both the parties on the next day morning at 10 in spite of my saying and no action was taken. On the next day we both the parties came in the Police Station and I told to Ashok Tyagi to do the needful as required but on that day the matter was not decided and given the time of next day. On the next day, we came in the Police Station but other party did not come present in the Police Station and there was no discussion further. Legal action may be taken on my complaint. Sd/- Rakesh Bawa son of G.S. Buwa E-708 Rail Vihar Sector 15 Gurgaon October 22, 2010. Police Proceeding: Today I ASI alongwith C. Surender 3849 reached at H.No. E708, Rail Vihar, Sector 15, Part II, Gurgaon regarding verification of the complaint, which was already entered vide DD No.34 dated 22.10.2010 in the roznamcha. From the contents of complaint and rapat No.34, offence under Section 452, 323, 506 IPC is found to be made and hence, ruqa is hereby being sent C. Surender Singh 3849 to police station for registration of case. After registration of case, case number be intimated. I ASI is busy in investigation at the spot. Today: Rail Vihar Sect-15, Part II, Gurgaon. Sd/- Raj Kumar ASI PS Civil Line, Gurgaon DT 20.11.10 at 03:15 PM. Today at police station: on receiving abovesaid writing and after registration of case under abovesaid offences through computer, computer copies were prepared and same will be sent to higher officers through post. Copy of police file along with original writing is being sent thorough same C. to ASI at the spot.”

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No.1 – Sanjay Kapoor is the proposed purchaser of a flat from the complainant/respondent No.2 namely Rakesh Bawa, in pursuance to an agreement to sell dated 12.02.2010 (Annexure P1) vide which a deal was struck between them for a total sale consideration of Rs.90 lacs, out of which, Rs.18 lacs were paid as earnest money and also got a loan from ICICI bank for Rs.60 lacs to make balance payment vide Annexure P3. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 is a witness to the agreement to sell and petitioner No.3 is a property dealer, through whom the deal was made.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that subsequent to the aforesaid agreement to sell, the complainant/respondent No.2 – seller, could not procure the no objection certificate from the concerned department and on that account, parties were having meetings with each other and on 08.10.2010 on the asking of the complainant, the petitioners have visited his house and the complainant/respondent No.2 having failed to perform his part of agreement, adopted a novel pro