1. - By this criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, No.1, Sujangarh, District Churu (for short 'the trial court') whereby the trial court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 454 and 380 IPC against the petitioner and issued process.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor as also the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

3. A complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner which was sent to the police for investigation u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The police filed final negative report solely on the ground that the matter is of civil nature. The protest petition was filed by the complainant respondent No.2. CW-1 Champalal, the complainant and two other witnesses viz. C.W.2 Malchand and C.W.-3 Champa were examined as complainant's witnesses. The trial court, on perusal of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner for the offences noticed above and took the cognizance of the offence and issued the process. Aggrieved by order impugned taking cognizance and issue of process, the accused petitioner filed the instant revision.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is of a civil nature and as such the criminal proceedings should not be allowed.

5. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that apart from civil remedy if the criminal act is established, then the criminal proceeding cannot be quashed on the ground that simultaneously a civil proceeding can also be initiated.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 (Suppl.) 1 SCC 335 has held that quashing of FIR or a complaint, in exercise of inherent powers of the High Court, should be limited to very extreme exceptions. Same view has been reiterated in Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that merely because an act has a civil profile, is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. The Court further observed as under:-

"It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions."

7. In Trisuns Chemicals Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal & ors., 1999 Cr.L.R.(SC) 677 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because dispute is of civil nature and Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance, the same cannot be a sufficient ground for quashing the FIR, particularly when act Prima facie constitutes an offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"We are unable to appreciate the reasoning that the provision incorporated in the agreement for referring the disputes to arbitration is an effective substitute for a criminal prosecution when the disputed act is an offence. Arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Preemption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases."

8. In Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharamaiah & ors., (2002) 9 SCC 581 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the so-called civil suit is a suit for specific performance. We see no justification on the part of the High Court under such circumstances to direct