( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings pending before S. D. M. , Raipur under Sections 145 and 146, Cr. P. C.

( 2 ) PETITIONER Yudhisthirlal is a partner in the Firm Sadani Builders of Raipur. This firm has undertaken a multicrore project for construction of 500 shops in village Boriyakala, Police Station Mana Camp in Raipur District. The builder availed of the services of M/s. Begraj Agarwal, a contractor firm, for construction of some of these shops on agreed terms and conditions. The contract of construction was reduced into writing on 19. 12. 1994. In pursuance of this agreement respondent No. 2 started construction work from 19-12-1994. These facts are not in dispute.

( 3 ) IT is further admitted that the contractor respondent No. 2 stopped the construction work in the middle, raising dispute about payment. Complaints were made to the police and eventually Station House Officer, Police Station Mana Camp, filed a report alongwith statements and other documents before S. D. M. Raipur. Proceedings under Section 145, Cr. P. C. were thus initiated and on the very same day, order under Section 146, Cr. P. C. was also passed for attachment of 280 shops and appointment of receiver. Admittedly both parties challenged this order before the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, who dismissed both these revision petitions and affirmed the order of the S. D. M.

( 4 ) THE petitioner had earlier filed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders both under Section 145, Cr. P. C. , and under Section 146 (1), Cr. P. C. affirmed by the Revisional Court. While dismissing that petition, the Court ob. served that the petitioner may challenge the orders under Section 482, Cr. P. C.

( 5 ) IN this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioner has urged that the agreement dated 19-12-1994 was later modified by mutual agreement on 7-2-1995, 7-5-1995 and 3-10-1995. The number of shops to be constructed through this contractor was reduced to 280. The work was to be completed within 18 months from the original agreement dated 19-12-1994 and was to be carried out under supervision of the petitioner.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he contractor committed breach of conditions of contract and lengthy correspondence between the two followed. The respondent stopped construction work on and from 4:6. 1996 and did not resume the same despite requests including telegraphic message. Respondent No. 2 also admitted stopping of work and removal of staff from the site.

( 7 ) FROM the last week of June, 1996 the petitioners got the work done valued by a registered valuer and started construction work on his own. The petitioner was the owner in possession of the property and the contractor was performing construction work on his behalf. The dispute between them related to payment of bills and was of a civil nature. Respondent No. 2 had stopped the construction work and the petitioner had to take up the construction work himself because he was required to pay huge amount as interest on the loan. The dispute was not covered under Section 145, Cr. P. C. and the proceedings before the S. D. M. , Raipur amount to abuse of the process of Court and therefore, deserve to be quashed.

( 8 ) THE second respondent opposed the petition by contending that the possession of the site was delivered to him in pursuance of the agreement dated 19-12-1994. Special emphasis was laid on Clause 24 of this agreement contending that under this Clause the contractor was entitled to retain possession of the work site till final payment. According to him, over one crore rupees were outstanding against the petitioner. The possession of the property remained with him and he successfully resisted the successive attempts of the petitioner to take forcible possession. The petitioner having failed in his revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, cannot be permitte