The court established that a joint complaint is not envisaged under the Code and that disputes of a civil nature should be resolved through civil courts, not criminal proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS Revision Petition is by the accused in C. C. No. 5199. 84 on the file of the Chief metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. It is directed against the order dated 18-8-1984 passed by the chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, directing issue of process to the accused for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 465. P. C.

( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way : the respondents in this revision, who will be hereinafter referred to as the complainant's, have filed a complaint before that Malleswaram Police against all these accused alleging the during the period between 1979 and 1980, the 1st accused, the ex-Matadhipathi of Chitrapur Mutt and ex-officio Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Sree Pandurangaswamy Ashrama Trust along with the other accused committed breach of trust by misappropriating the gold and silver articles of the Trust worth about Rs. 8 to 10 lakhs. On the basis of the complaint filed by them, the malleswaram Police, registered a case in Cr. No. 485/82 under Section 409. P. C ; submitted an f.. R. to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 16-10-1982 and took up investigation. During the investigation, the Police seized number of documents pertaining to the Trust. The Police, after conducting the investigation, submitted a 'b' final report by reporting that the dispute was one of civil nature on. 23-4-1983. The police had also issued notice to the complainants intimating them their filing 'b' report treating the case as one of civil nature. Thereupon the complainants have presented a joint complaint-petition under Section 200 read with Section 190 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) on 24-5-1983 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, bangalore City. The Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of both complainants. Thereafter, having considered the complaint petition, the sworn statement of the complainants and also the documents seized and the mahazar drawn by the police during the investigation of Cr. No, 485/82, the Magistrate passed the impugned order on 18-8-1984 directing issue of process against all the accused for the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 465. P. C. It is the correctness of this order that is sought to be assailed in this Revision Petition.

( 3 ) SRI R. B. Deshpande, Learned Advocate appearing for the accused, presented three points for consideration. Firstly, he contended that a joint complaint is not envisaged under the provisions of the Code and as such the complaint presented by the complainants in this case is legally erroneous and the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint is also erroneous and not in accordance with law. Secondly, he contended that the allegations made against the accused in the complaint and in the sworn statement of the complainants do not make out any of the offences alleged against the accused. They disclosed at best civil a dispute between the parties and as such the criminal prosecution initiated against the accused is wholly illegal and unwarranted. Thirdly, he contended that the procedure followed by the Magistrate in looking into the documents seized and the mahazar drawn by 'the police during the investigation of the criminal case registered on complaint filed by the complainants, is wholly illegal and beyond his jurisdiction, as they clearly fall outside the scope of enquiry under Chapter XV of the code.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri B. Gopalaiah, Learned Advocate appearing for the complainants contended that there is no prohibition under the Code for filing a joint complaint, that at best it would amount to an irregularity and not an illegality and it does not vitiate the proceedings, that there is no substance in the contention that the averments made in the complaint taken along with the sworn statement of the complainants disclose only a civil dispute, that the material placed before the magistrate do support the view taken by the Magistrate that there was sufficient ground to