The appeal made by the trustees of the Sardar Bahadur Sir Inder Singh (Personal Estate) Trust to quash criminal proceedings initiated by the second respondent, Ganesh Kumar Agiwal. The dispute arises from agreements for sale executed in 2001 between the trustees and the second respondent, and subsequent legal actions including a suit for specific performance, a withdrawal application, and criminal complaints alleging conspiracy and fraud. The High Court's decision not to quash the criminal proceedings was challenged on the grounds that the continuation of the complaint was an abuse of the legal process, especially given the out-of-court settlement and the withdrawal of the specific performance suit by the second respondent. The Supreme Court eventually quashed the complaint, recognizing that the continuation of the criminal proceedings was unjustified.

 Factual Aspects

• Nature of Appeal: To quash criminal proceedings filed by Ganesh Kumar Agiwal.
• Parties Involved: Appellants are trustees of the Sardar Bahadur Sir Inder Singh (Personal Estate) Trust; agreements made with Ganesh Kumar Agiwal and Uma Shankar Agiwal.
• Suit for Specific Performance: Filed in 2005, advance refunded in 2007, suit withdrawn.
• Criminal Complaint: Filed in 2007 alleging fraud and conspiracy.

Withdrawal of Suit

• Advance Payment Returned: Rs.28,01,000/- refunded by demand draft and Rs.5,00,000/- by pay order.
• Complaint by Second Respondent: Filed under Section 200 of Cr. PC in June 2007.

Allegations in the Complaint

• Accusations: Sections 420, 406, 424, and 120-B of IPC.
• Alleged Conspiracy: Uma Shankar's application to withdraw the suit without the second respondent's knowledge.

Legal Proceedings

• Dismissal of Second Complaint: By Judicial Magistrate in 2009.
• Withdrawal of Specific Performance Suit: Application by second respondent in November 2008, suit dismissed.

Application for Discharge

• Section 245 Cr.PC Application: Rejected by Judicial Magistrate in 2012, upheld by High Court, SLP withdrawn with liberty to seek remedies.

Writ Petition in High Court

• Petition under Article 226: For quashing the first criminal complaint, dismissed by High Court due to earlier rejection in criminal revision.

Submissions by Counsels

• Appellants' Argument: Continuation of complaint is abuse of process post-settlement.
• Respondents' Argument: High Court correctly disallowed re-opening of closed issue.

Consideration of Submissions

• Agreements for Sale: Details and earnest money paid.
• Second Complaint Details: Dismissed by Judicial Magistrate in 2009.

Withdrawal of Specific Performance Suit

• Application by Second Respondent: Explicitly gave up claims on suit properties.
• Trial Court Order: Allowed withdrawal, unchallenged by second respondent.

High Court's Error

• Section 362 of Cr.PC Misapplied: Dismissal of quashing petition on wrong grounds.
• Subsequent Developments: Settlement and withdrawal not considered.

Supreme Court's Decision

• Quashing the Complaint: Recognized abuse of process, quashed C/1 Case No.1027 of 2007.

 Conclusion

• Appeal Succeeds: Criminal proceedings quashed, acknowledging the unjust continuation of the complaint after settlement.