1. It appears from the order dated 2nd December, 2016 that learned Judge directed that CRR No. 3999 of 2015, CRR No. 4000 of 2015, CRR No. 3816 of 2015, CRR No. 4001 of 2015 and CRR No. 3817 of 2015 to list along with this CRR two weeks after Christmas vacation. However, at the time of taking up CRAN No. 5506 of 2017 objection was raised on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that the cause of action has already been shifted to Delhi and accordingly the opposite party no. 2 may be given the requisite liberty to take appropriate action in Delhi and to dispose of the CRR under reference being no. 808 of 2016. Pursuant to the order dated 9th of January, 2018 CRR No. 808 of 2016 has been fixed for hearing on 18th of January, 2018. However, that order was passed without looking into the order passed by this Court on 2nd of December, 2016. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in CRR No. 4002 of 2015 submitted that he had no knowledge about the hearing of CRR No. 4002 of 2015 on 18th January, 2018 and accordingly the hearing of the said CRR should be deferred. At this stage learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 raised preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the instant case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 submitted that the First Information Report under reference should be directed to be closed with liberty to the complainant to prosecute the petitioner in Delhi, if there be any cause of action there. It is submitted that to avoid the prolixity of litigation and to avoid conflict of decisions between the two Courts, it is necessary in the interest of justice to direct the First Information Report stands closed. Learned Advocate for opposite party no. 2 further contended that if this Court does not accept such prayer of the opposite party no. 2 in that event the matter may be referred for consideration by the Hon’ble Court, which is adjudicating CP No. 93 of 1988. It is further submitted that since alternative remedy is available the instant application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable in law and this Court cannot decide the disputed facts between the parties while adjudicating a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Advocate further contended that on the basis of peacemeal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner cannot ask for quashing of entire proceeding since other accused persons have not yet joined with the petitioner. Learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently contended that the state helped the petitioner and thereby conducted the investigation in a biased manner in order to give relief to the petitioner than to investigate in a fair and impartial manner. In support of his contention learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 2 has relied on a decision reported in Madhu Limaye vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 and drew the attention of the Court to paragraph 11 of the said decision which may be reproduced below:

“In R.P. Kapur vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, Gajendragadkar J. as he then was, delivering the judgment of this Court pointed out, if we may say so with respect, very succinctly the scope of the inherent power of the High Court for the purpose of quashing a criminal proceeding. Says the learned Judge at pages 392-93 (of SCR): (at p. 889 of AIR):-

Ordinarily criminal proceedings instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code, and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with the said proceedings at an interlocutory stage. It is not possible, desirable or expedient to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern the exercise of this inherent jurisdiction. However, we may indicate some categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction can and should be exercised for quashing the proce