Hon'ble Abhai Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Prashant Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Mahipal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

2. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the charge sheet no.244/11 dated 25.7.2011 arsing out of Case Crime No.376 of 2011, under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor as well as congnizance order dated 22.9.2011 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Najibabad, Bijnor and further prayed to stay the further proceeding in Case No.1559 of 2011 (State vs. Komal and others), pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Najibabad, Bijnor.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 2.7.2011 against the applicants in reference to an occurrence, which is said to have taken place on 16.5.2005. The investigating officer after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the applicants.

4. It is submission of learned counsel for the applicants that investigating officer has not investigated the matter properly and fairly and has not taken into consideration the evidence of witnesses, namely, Naseem Ahmad and Sageer Ahmad. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and initiation of criminal proceeding is blatant misuse of process of law and the same is being initiated just to pressurize the applicants to extract the money. It is alleged that an agreement entered between the applicant no.1 and husband of opposite party no.2 and if there is any dispute in regard to that, then remedy of civil nature is available to the husband of opposite party no.2. It is further submission of learned counsel for the applicants that no agreement ever took place as has been mentioned in the FIR. The agreement is forged and the same is being fabricated by the husband of opposite party no.2, who is Lekhpal. The applicant no.1 never took cash from the opposite party no.2 and other applicants have no concerned regarding the aforesaid agreement. It is admitted by learned counsel for the applicants that civil and criminal proceeding are going on between the parties and Bhupendra Singh, husband of opposite party no.2 just to blackmail the applicants, have fabricated the forged agreement.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that investigating officer after finding evidence sufficient against the applicants, submitted the charge sheet and besides the agreement, there is another incident that is being mentioned in the FIR regarding threat extended by the applicants to the opposite party no.2, which is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be decided by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. Although, the agreement is being denied by the applicants, even if it is deemed to be true, then the remedy available to the opposite party no.2, is civil in nature and agreement ought to have been enforced in a civil proceeding. If any criminal proceeding is being drawn just to vent the remedy that is being available in civil proceeding, then same is ought to be considered very carefully and it is the duty of the Court to protect the interest of a genuine person.

7. So far as first part of FIR is concerned, which is related to the agreement, it can very well be said that dispute in this regard is civil in nature and no offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C is made out. The crux of Section 420 as has been mentioned in Section 415 I.P.C., the intention of a person entering into an agreement should not be malafide from the very beginning and if it is not being proved that intention of a person is malafide at the time of entering into an agreement, an offence under Section 420