Judgment : Accused 1 to 13 in P.R.C.No. 6 of 1990 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, have filed this petition under Sec.482, Crl.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and quash the same. .2. Short facts are: The respondent has filed the private complaint against the petitioners for offences under Secs.454 and 379 read with 109, I.P.C. The allegations in it are briefly as follows: The first accused is the adoptive father of this complainant. The complainant is owning Door Nos.13-A and 13-B in Anandan Well Street, and they are in his possession. He had kept 110 bags of sabre-bean seeds in the said house for the purpose of business. Disputes arose between the complainant and his father and the complainant had filed suit in O.S.No. 103 of 1989 on the file of Sub-Court and had also filed petition in I.A.No. 235 of 1989 for interim injunction and it is pending. On 8. 1989, the complainant went to Krishnagiri. At that time, at about 2.00 a.m., the accused 1 to 12 along with two police constables and six labourers came in the lorry bearing No. TNR 679 and criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant. The first accused attempted to break open the lock with an iron rod. The complainant’s wife Krishnaveni intervened. At that time, A-1 told that they are doing it on the direction of A-13. Witnesses Duraisamy and Same Gounder intervened. A-9 threatened him that he would put the witnesses inside. A-1 was not able to break open that lock. A-9 tried to break open it with an iron rod. Krishnaveni and Chitra intervened but yet A-9 broke open the lock. With the aid of the other accused, the said 110 bags were taken out and loaded in the lorry. Krishnaveni and Chitra obstructed them. A-3 and A-5 pushed them away. The other accused had helped the labourers who lifted the bags. A-9 two constables and A12 took Krishnaveni to the Police Station. By about 4.00 p.m., they left the place with the bags. On coming to know of the occurrence, the complainant went to the police station and found Krishnaveni there. A-9 refused to send her back, but later had sent her. A-9 two constables and A12 took Krishnaveni to the Police Station. By about 4.00 p.m., they left the place with the bags. On coming to know of the occurrence, the complainant went to the police station and found Krishnaveni there. A-9 refused to send her back, but later had sent her. While the complainant questioned A-13, he replied that because his words were not heeded, it instigated other accused to remove the bags and challenged him to do whatever he wants. Since police have not taken action, this private complaint is laid. .3. Mr.E.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that a civil suit is pending with regard to the same two houses bearing Door.Nos.13-A and 13-B that it was filed by the complainant and petition praying for temporary injunction is pending and the above would show that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to these houses. He would further submit that in the sworn statement given by Chitra, whose name has been referred in the complaint, she has admitted that these bags were kept in the house only be her grand-father viz., the first accused herein. He would also refer to the notice sent on behalf of the complainant on 8. 1989 wherein it is stated that the first accused, who was No. 3 in that notice, was living along with the complainant together as members of the Hindu Joint family and both of them had been doing business in grains, coconuts etc. It is also staled in that notice that electricity connection, water connection as also the property tax for the building bearing Door No. 13-A was obtained in the name of No. 3 in that notice viz., accused No. 1 herein. From the above, the learned counsel, would submit that there is a bona fide dispute with regard to two houses and the matter is pending in the civil court and in the circumstances, the complainant is liable to be quashed. I have heard Mr.C.Pandian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. From the above, the following facts emerge: The respondent has filed complaint against these 13 petitioners. I have heard Mr.C.Pandian, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsels. From the above, the following facts emerge: The respondent has filed complaint against these 13 petitioners. It in respect of removal of 110 bags of sabre-bean seeds from the buildings bearing Door Nos.l3-A and 13-B, with regard to the very same houses, the complainant has filed a suit in O.S.No. 103 of 1989 on the file of sub court and as well had filed petition, praying for temporary injunction and both of them were pending without any orders passed thereon, at the time of this occurrence. In the sworn statement given by Chitra, one of the witnesses cited in the complaint, she has stated that her grand-father had kept these bags in their house. The grand-father referred to by her is the first accused herein, In the notice sent by the complainant on 8. 1989 to the Inspector of Police, Sub-Inspector of Police and the first accused herein, arraying them as Nos.1 to 3, he has stated as follows: “That No. 3 of you is the adoptive father of my client.” Lower down, it is stated as follows: “Since No. 3 of you is the adoptive father of my client as stated in the abovesaid registered settlement deed dated 23. 60, my client and No. 3 of you have been living together as members of Hindu Joint Family and both of you have been doing business in grains, coconuts, etc., Since No. 3 of you is the head of the family, electricity connection, water connection as also the properly tax for the abovesaid building bearing Door No. 13-A was obtained in the name of No. 3 of you.” The above materials would go to show that there was a bona fide dispute with regard to these houses in which these accused were said to have filtered and with regard to 110 bags of sabre-bean seeds, which is the subject-matter of the offence. 5. In Thankapan v. Thankaraj, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 395. Justice Padmini Jesudurai had occasion to consider the quashing of a complaint for alleged offences under Secs.147, 148, 449, 427, 379 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., which had been forwarded by the Magistrate to the concerned police, who in turn had registered it as crime and commenced investigation. 5. In Thankapan v. Thankaraj, 1988 L.W. (Crl.) 395. Justice Padmini Jesudurai had occasion to consider the quashing of a complaint for alleged offences under Secs.147, 148, 449, 427, 379 and 506, Part II, I.P.C., which had been forwarded by the Magistrate to the concerned police, who in turn had registered it as crime and commenced investigation. The learned Judge had pointed out that the main ingredients of the offence into which an investigation is made depend upon the determination of civil rights and in such a case, it is desirable that the civil courts are permitted to decide the issue. While a civil suit is pending, with reference to these questions, it is not desirable to police to determine the respective claims of the parties. The other offences depend upon the question as to who is in possession of the property. The facts of the case before me are similar. So this ruling applies squarely to the facts of this case. In Subramanian, M.N. v. S. Pasupathy, 1981 L.W. (Crl.) 251. Justice M.N. Moorthy had taken a similar view. When there is a bona fide dispute regarding property and when the matter is pending in a civil court, the criminal proceedings were quashed in this case by the learned Judge. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, inasmuch as there was a bona fide dispute and since the matter is in the civil court and since the offences alleged depend on the determination of the rights in the civil court, this complaint is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed accordingly.