IMPORTANT POINT
High Court, while exercising its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should not get swayed by the defence, which is raised by the parties and even before the charges are framed, should not convert the proceedings before High Court into a mini trial, instead, it would be appropriate to direct the parties to exhaust their remedy before the Magistrate Court and thereafter, approach this Court.

ORDER

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.— Cri. P. No. 5598 of 2010 is by the accused in Crime No. 26 of 2010 registered by Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No. 33002 of 2010 pending on the file of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

2. Cri. P. No. 3581 of 2010 is by the accused in Crime No. 279 of 2009 registered by Basavesh-waranagar Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No. 5654 of 2010 coming within the jurisdiction of IV-Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

3. The background of the case would indicate that there is allegation and counter allegation between petitioners in both the cases. So far as Cri. P. No. 3581 of 2010 is concerned, petitioner, Krishnamurthy, is said to be the owner of a residential apartment bearing No. 404 in the 4th Floor of “Chirag Prajwal” building with super built up area of 1039 sq. feet constructed on the property bearing No.25 (old Site Nos. 1, 2, 20 and 21), situated at 7th Main Road, J.C. Nagar, Geleyarabalaga Layout, Bangalore. Petitioner in Cri. P. No. 5598 of 2010, Shivalingegowda, is concerned, he is a retired Police Inspector. The material on record would indicate that there was a transaction between petitioner in both petitions with reference to sale of aforesaid apartment for valuable consideration of Rs. 30,00,000.

4. The complaint in Crime No. 26 of 2010, converted into CC No. 33002 of 2010, filed by petitioner in Cri. P. No. 3581 of 2010 is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of IPC. The offences alleged in the complaint in Crime No. 279 of 2009, converted into CC No. 5654 of 2010, filed by petitioner in Cri. P. No. 5598 of 2010 are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. After the charge-sheet is filed in both crime numbers, CC Nos. 33002 and 5654 of 2010 are registered, which are pending consideration before the V-Additional CMM and IV-Additional CMM respectively. It is admittedly, at the stage of framing of charges. It is the case of petitioner in Cri. P. No. 5598 of 2010, Shivalin-gegowda, that 2nd respondent therein, Krishnamurthy, agreed to sell the property in question under an agreement of sale dated 26.5.2008. However, petitioner in Cri.P.No. 3581 of 2008, Krishnamurthy, has denied the execution of the said agreement of sale stating that the said document is created under different set of circumstances. Therefore, at this juncture, the question of quashing both the proceedings, which are pending against petitioner in both petitions does not arise.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner in both the petitions. Perused the material on record. It is seen that the petitions are premature in nature and the defence that is raised by the parties in these proceedings could be raised by them in the proceedings before the learned Magistrate before the charges are framed and seek for their discharge. However, it is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner in Cri. P. No. 3581 of 2010 that the dispute between petitioners is one in the nature of a civil dispute and therefore, the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2008 SC 251: (2007)12 SCC 1: (2008)1 SCC (Cri.) 259 would squarely apply to the case on hand on all fours.

6. On going through the said judgment, it is seen that the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering an appeal, where the defence was set up by the accused to the effect that a civil dispute was converted into a criminal prosecution and he was harassed by the complainant, on going through the material available on record, held that the complaint could not have been maintained and quashed the proceedings emanating from the FIR. While doing so, it was observed as under in