The applicant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.c." for short) with a prayer to quash and set aside the complaint and proceedings initiated thereunder being Criminal Case No. 13/S/86 pending on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, 44th Court, Andheri.

The Factual Matrix:

2. The factual matrix reveals that in or about 1980, the applicant Shri Babulal Khimji Shah and respondent No.2 entered into an agreement for sale of certain immovable properties situate in the locality known as Viral', district Thane. It is the case of the complainant that he came in contact with the accused sometime in the month of August, 1980 and on representation made by him, complainant entered into an agreement with him to purchase the property admeasuring about 4 acres situate near Viral' Railway Station, district-Thane. The applicant-accused thereafter, sold the very same property to one M/s Paranjape Builders Pvt. Ltd., since he got much higher consideration for the property in question. The details of transaction between complainant and the accused are given in the complaint, which are not in dispute. The order issuing process is a subject matter of challenge in this revision.

Submissions :

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was civil suit filed by the complainant against the present applicant for specific performance of the agreement in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar and that the said suit came to be partly decreed in favour of the complainant. Thus, the dispute is of civil nature.

4. It is further urged by the applicant that the proceedings are pending past more than 14 years without any progress and that the complainant has already availed civil remedy as such he prayed that the complaint and the proceedings initiated thereunder be quashed and set aside by recalling the order issuing process against the applicant.

5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant were opposed by the respondents contending that the complaint makes out a case for issuing process. Consideration :

6. At the outset it may be mentioned that so far as the criminal complaint is concerned, there is absolutely no material on record of the proceedings relating to filing of the suit or decree passed therein. For the first time this averment is made in the revision application under consideration as such this aspect of the matter cannot be taken into consideration. No material in this behalf was available before the learned Magistrate when the process was issued. In this case, civil suit may have been decreed, the details of which are not available on record, but at any rate, by taking recourse to civil remedy, criminal law remedy is not barred or the complainant is not estopped from seeking such remedy. Thus, submission made in this behalf has no force at this stage. It may be one of the defences in trial but cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings which are otherwise tenable and well within the four corners of law.

7. The applicant has also not taken care to disclose as to on which date the order issuing process was passed by the learned Magistrate. No date in this behalf is available on record. If the complaint is of 1985, then hardly there is any reason for the applicant to file present application in the year 1999, that too; after 14 years.

8. So far as law relating to the quashing of criminal proceeding is concerned, it is well established and well settled that if the complaint makes out a case for prosecution answering all the requirements of the offence alleged against the accused then the complaint or the proceedings initiated thereunder cannot be quashed and set aside in exercise of powers under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

9. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and r