K. RAMANNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. to quash the impugned FIR in Cr. No. 359 of 2001, dated 25-6-2001 of Jayanagar police Station, Bangalore, mainly on the ground that the respondent-police have failed to inform themselves that the facts alleged in the FIR do not even remotely attract the ingredients of the offence of cheating. Petitioners being the absolute owners of the property have sold the said property to the complainant under a registered sale deed. ( 2 ) THE case of the respondent-prosecution is that the petitioner 1 suppressing the very fact about the attachment of the property by the debt Recovery Tribunal, sold the same to the complainant and subsequently after receipt of the notice the petitioner 1 has paid a sum of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- therefore, initiation of proceedings against the petitioner is in accordance with law. ( 3 ) HEARD the arguments of the Advocate for the petitioners and the respondent. ( 4 ) DURING the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations made in the complaint is of civil in nature and there is remedy for the complainant to approach the civil Court and therefore initiation of criminal proceedings does not arise and therefore the order of Magistrate in taking cognizance is highly illegal and incorrect which is abuse of due process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. ( 5 ) PER contra the Counsel for the respondent submitted that merely because remedy by way civil suit is available is not an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint. ( 6 ) IT is an undisputed fact that the first petitioner is the absolute owner of the property bearing No. 486 of 1976, 38th Cross, 8th Block, jayanagar, Bangalore-82, measuring 100' x 160'. As a owner of the property the 1st petitioner sold the same to the complainant M/s. Hemlet Properties Private Limited, Bangalore, for a sale consideration of Rs. 1. 55 crores. On a careful reading of the complaint it is clear that the Corporation Bank had filed an application in O. A. No. 177 of 1995 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the loan advanced to the petitioners and during the pendency of the same the property which was sold to the complainant has been attached. 1. 55 crores. On a careful reading of the complaint it is clear that the Corporation Bank had filed an application in O. A. No. 177 of 1995 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of the loan advanced to the petitioners and during the pendency of the same the property which was sold to the complainant has been attached. In spite of the attachment of the property and without disclosing the fact of attachment of the property the petitioner 1 had executed an absolute sale deed on 15-3-2000 in favour of the complainant. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that before executing the sale deed he had given an advertisement in the newspaper that he is the absolute owner of the property and about selling the same in favour of the complainant, and therefore the petitioner has not suppressed any fact before selling the same. Para 22 of the complaint clearly indicates that petitioner 1 has executed the sale deed in the capacity of the owner whereas petitioner 2 attested the sale deed and he was fully aware about the effect of the attachment order passed by the Debt Recovery tribunal. Therefore, on careful reading of the complaint it clearly shows that the complainant has filed the complaint against both the petitioners as executants of the sale deed and as an attesting witness. And further that the allegations made in the complaint reveals the prima facie case to invoke the said offences. Therefore, contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the complaint does not disclose about the ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC does not arise. ( 7 ) IN the case of Trilok Singh and Others v Satya Deo Tripathi, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:"where the allegations set out in the complaint or charge-sheet do not constitute any offence, the High Court is exercise of its inherent power may quash the Magistrate's order taking congnizance of the offence". Whereas in the instant case that is prima facie case to constitute the said offence to connect the petitioners and moreover it is not a rarest of rare cases to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. Whereas in the instant case that is prima facie case to constitute the said offence to connect the petitioners and moreover it is not a rarest of rare cases to invoke the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. The allegations of the complaint discloses that the transaction involved passing of valuable properties between the parties and that there is no impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence as held by the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alpic Finance Limited v P. Sadasivan and Another. ( 8 ) VIEWED from any angle, I do not find any good reasons to hold that the petitioners have made any grounds to quash the initiation of criminal proceedings in Crime No. 359 of 2001 of Jayanagar Police station. Hence, the petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .