make out against the petitioners, therefore, the FIR has been lodged against petitioners to prosecute them for their criminal acts and fraudulent deeds.Learned counsel for accused petitioners, vehemently argued that from bare perusal of contents of the impugned as a whole, it stands clear that there was a written contract between the parties under which, the possession of property in question was lawfully entrusted to petitioners to run a vegetarian restaurant. It has been argued that petitioners are making payment of their share of revenue and it has wrongly been stated in the FIR that more than of the arrears of revenue against petitioners have fallen due upto 31.07.2023. counsel for petitioners, during course of arguments, sought to refer details of accounts, in order to show that time to time upto 22.06.2023, petitioners have made payments in the account of complainant through NEFT. Learned counsel has urged that even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that there is some dispute between parties, regarding non payment of the full amount of revenue share by petitioners, a remedy for recovery of the due amount, if any, is available to the complainant. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to the relevant Clause No.6 of the sublease agreement dated 16.03.2023, which talks about dispute resolution forum that all kinds of disputes and differences between the parties shall be referred to and settled by two arbitrators, one be appointed by each party. In sum and substance, contention of learned counsel for petitioners is that the dispute even of due arrears of revenue or non delivery of possession or breach of conditions of the sublease agreement, whatsoever may be, the nature or dispute between parties is purely civil and the complainant has maliciously tried to give color to such a civil dispute to a criminal one, by registering the FIR impugned herein. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that a civil suit for permanent injunction has also been filed by petitioners before the Civil Judge, Reni, District Alwar, against the respondent No.2- complainant, wherein the complainant himself has taken resort to