under section 138 of the NI Act. An agreement for cancellation of Development agreement dated 27-08-2015 was executed in between the petitioner and the complainant, were in under the complainant admitted that, he is unable to carry out the development agreement and due to the same it is being cancelled, as such the allegation that the lands in question were disputed is an afterthought. It is next submitted that it is not in dispute that petitioner in pursuance of power of attorney executed in his favour by co-accused Bhanu Pratap Singh with respect to the land in dispute, which pertains to Plot No.1026, Khata No.777, Tauzi No.5123, Thana No.2, Area 6 kathas entered into an agreement with the complainant on 21.10.2014 but thereafter a dispute arose. It is also submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the complainant alleging that the land belongs to Jal Parishad when the land belongs to co-accused Bhanu Pratap Singh, who had executed the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner, based on which, the aforesaid agreement was entered with the complainant. Learned counsel submits that since a dispute had arisen after entering into the agreement of the year 2014 with respect to the land in question as there was some defect in the title of the land as such the earlier agreement was cancelled and petitioner entered into a fresh agreement with the complainant on 27.08.2015 with respect to a plot of land pertaining to Khata No.326, Plot No.1050, Tauzi No.5123, Mauza-Mainpura, P.S. Phulwarisharif, Area 28.125 decimals. In any view of the matter, the dispute disclosed by the complainant/ O.P No. 02 is predominantly of civil nature, and the complainant has given the same a colour of criminal offence, which is nothing but an abuse of process of court.
