S. P. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners by filing an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure sought for quashing of the proceeding under section 468/471/448/380/34 of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Lake town Police Station FIR No. 235 dated 16. 09. 2003 now pending before the learned Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, 24-Parganas (N ). ( 2 ) THE grievances of the petitioners, as ventilated in the application, may briefly be stated as follows: one Sushil Kumar Agarwal, who is opposite party No. 2, filed an application before the learned Court of SDJM, Barrackpore, praying for directing I. C. , Lake town Police Station for investigation of the matter after treating the said application as First Information Report under section 156 (3) of the Code of criminal Procedure. By order No. 1 dated 15. 09. 2003 the learned Magistrate directed I. C. , Lake Town Police Station, to investigate into the matter in the manner as sought for. ( 3 ) AFTER completion of investigation the police authority submitted charge-sheet in the said case under section 468/471/448/380/34 of IPC against the present petitioners. ( 4 ) IT was alleged by the O. P. No. 2, as complainant in the case under reference, that during the month of February and March, 2003, the accused No. 1 approached the complainant for providing him with a flat in the multi-storied building but the complainant could not oblige on the ground that accused No. 1 was having past criminal records. Considering the inconvenience and annoyance, which could be caused to the other occupants of the said multi-storied building, the complainant was reluctant to allot any flat in favour of accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 in collusion with accused No. 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy, manufactured and forged some documents and converted them into valuable documents under the caption of agreement. Accused No. 1 in collusion with accused No. 2 issued nonces dated 11. 07. 2003 through their advocates alleging, inter alia, that the complainant executed two agreements with accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 separately for transferring two flats in the aforesaid multi-storied building. It was also alleged that the complainant also took an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ -. The complainant, on receipt of the lawyer's notices, immediately replied to the same through his advocate by letter dated 25. 07. It was also alleged that the complainant also took an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/ -. The complainant, on receipt of the lawyer's notices, immediately replied to the same through his advocate by letter dated 25. 07. 2003 thereby emphatically denying all the false allegations. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not, however, enclose the copies of the forged agreements while sending the lawyer's notice. The complainant never entered into any agreement whatsoever with the accused Nos. 1 and 2. On 6th August, 2003 at about 11 a. m. , accused No. 1, accompanied by some anti-social elements, trespassed into the office of the complainant and demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from him and threatened to kill him if the matter is brought to the notice of the police authority. They, however, claimed that they would occupy two flats in the aforesaid multi-storied building of the complainant at 344, Canal Street, P. S.-Lake Town. They also told the complainant that they would not vacate the said two flats unless they are given the aforesaid demanded amount. The complainant was left with no choice but to lodge a complaint in this regard before the Burtolla Police Station on 12. 08. 2003. It was also alleged that the Darwan/caretaker of the complainant informed that the accused persons in furtherance of their common object trespassed into the two flats with the assistance of the anti-social elements by breaking open padlocks of the doors of the said two flats and removed valuable articles, like computer, type writer, furniture, etc. , which were lying inside the said two flats. ( 5 ) IN the present application the accused persons, as petitioners, alleged that the case had been cooked up by the present O. P. No. 2, who, as a family friend, came to petitioner No. 1 in May, 1995 with the proposal for sale of flat, which was proposed to be constructed at premises No. 344, Canal Street, Shree bhumi, P. S. Lake Town. An agreement was executed on 31stmay, 1995 between the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant/o. P. No. 2. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were required to pay @ Rs. 400/-per sq. ft. and additional amount @ 15% per sq. ft. on the super built up area in connection with the purchase of the two flats measuring about 1625 sq. ft. and 625 sq. ft. 1 and 2 and the complainant/o. P. No. 2. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were required to pay @ Rs. 400/-per sq. ft. and additional amount @ 15% per sq. ft. on the super built up area in connection with the purchase of the two flats measuring about 1625 sq. ft. and 625 sq. ft. respectively in the second floor of the building. It was agreed that payment could be made by instalments either in cash or by cheque and delivery of the flats would be made within a period of 18 months from the date of sanction of the building plan, unless extended for further period by mutual consent. ( 6 ) IN terms of the agreement an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs and odd was paid to the O. P. No. 2 during 01. 06. 1995 and 31. 12. 1997. Buildingplan was sanctioned on 25. 09. 1995. Disputes, however, cropped up regarding certain aspects including provision of lift facility, etc. On 27. 09. 1998 the disputes and differences between the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant were discussed in presence of'one Gautam Chand Sethia and it was recorded by him. Subsequently, there had been further discussion and modification of the earlier agreement dated 31. 05. 1995. The complainant acknowledged receipt of a sum of Rs. 9 lakhs and odd, which were paid by the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 on different dates in cash and agreed to refund a sum of Rs. 3,48,100/-, which was the amount paid in excess of Rs. 5,52,000/-, being the price for the said two flats. The complainant/ o. P. No. 2 agreed to refund the said amount simultaneously with the execution and registration of the appropriate deeds of conveyance. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were given possession of 600 sq. ft. built up area on 11. 8. 2003 in the third floor and 4th floor of the buildmg, though construction of the said two flats were not complete. But, in spite of several reminders, the complainant did not complete the conveyance nor did he refund the said excess amount. The complainant did not issue any letter of possession in favour of any of the purchasers. The petitioner No. 1 recorded the delivery of possession in writing to the local police station. But, in spite of several reminders, the complainant did not complete the conveyance nor did he refund the said excess amount. The complainant did not issue any letter of possession in favour of any of the purchasers. The petitioner No. 1 recorded the delivery of possession in writing to the local police station. The Investigating Authority without taking into consideration such facts and materials submitted chargesheet in this case on the basis of perfunctory investigation. There had been no occasion for the petitioners to forcibly occupy any portion of the flats, nor they ever demanded a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, nor did the present petitioner threaten the complainant/ o. P. No. 2. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances the petitioners sought for quashing of the entire proceedings. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Sanyal, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the manner in which investigation was conducted was nothing but perfunctory and the Investigating Authority by choice did not take into consideration the facts, which were not favourable to the present O. P. No. 2. The fact that there had been a collateral agreement between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the complainant in regard to purchase of the flats and such agreement was made as far back as on 31. 05. 1995, was not taken into effective consideration. The Investigating Authority also did not take note of the fact that payment of Rs. 9 lakhs and odd was made to the O. P. No. 2. The investigating Authority failed to appreciate that the dispute between the parties was essentially in the nature of a civil dispute. In fact, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit, being Suit No. 43 of 2005 praying for order of specific performance of the collateral agreement as referred to earlier. ( 9 ) IN course of argument Mr. Sanyal invited attention of the Court to the averments made in the civil suits, which was filed by the present petitioner nos. 1 and 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in appreciation of the grievances, as ventilated in the case, the learned Single Bench of this court directed the parties to maintain status quo by order dated 4th March, 2005. 1 and 2. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in appreciation of the grievances, as ventilated in the case, the learned Single Bench of this court directed the parties to maintain status quo by order dated 4th March, 2005. It was further submitted that subsequently the learned Court in the order dated 15th March, 2005 observed as follows:"1 am satisfied going by the averment and also the documents that the plaintiff has paid entire consideration money and has been in possession. Therefore, he is entitled to get all the protection required under section 53a of the Transfer of Properties Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . Interim order already passed shall continue until further orders of this Court. " ( 10 ) MR. Sanyal then submitted that the nature and background of the present case and the available materials do not leave any scope for police investigation as the dispute is essentially required to be settled by a Civil Court. He referred to the decision in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE. SIU (X), new Delhi vs. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. . Calcutta, reported in AIR 1996 sc 2452 , in support of his contention that the case being basically a matter of civil dispute, there could hardly be any justification for continuation of the criminal proceeding. In the said case the Apex Court took into consideration the fact while observing that "compromise decrees passed in the suits instituted by the Banks for all intents and purposes, amounted to compounding of the offence of cheating. Consequently, complaint for both offences was liable to be quashed. " ( 11 ) MR. Sanyal sought to derive further support and strength from the decision in the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan and Anr. , reported in 2001 SCC (Cri) 565. In the said case the Apex Court, however, observed. "merely because remedy by way of civil suit is available is not an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence alleged". ( 12 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Moitra, appearing for the opposite party, submitted that the present case has a peculiar background and the grievances, as ventilated by the petitioners, are required to be analysed and appreciated in the context of the said background. Mr. ( 12 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Moitra, appearing for the opposite party, submitted that the present case has a peculiar background and the grievances, as ventilated by the petitioners, are required to be analysed and appreciated in the context of the said background. Mr. Moitra contended that in the present case the civil suit was filed after filing of the chargesheet in the criminal case under reference. ( 13 ) WHILE the High Court in exercise of its power under section 482 of the cr. PC is required to examine the complaint in its entirety on the basis of the allegations made therein, it has no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. Whatever appears on the face of the complaint is required to be taken into consideration without going for a critical assessment. The following are relevant factors to be taken into consideration: (1) whether the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) whether the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (3) whether the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) whether, the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. [reference; Nagawwa vs. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, 1976 (3) SCC 736 ] ( 14 ) IT seems to be the settled position of law that the jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rater limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to be extremely careful and cautious while quashing a criminal proceeding. ( 15 ) MR. In exercising power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court is required to be extremely careful and cautious while quashing a criminal proceeding. ( 15 ) MR. Moitra contended that mere pendency of a civil suit, which was filed subsequent to submission of chargesheet in the criminal case, cannot be a ground for quashing of the proceeding. According to him, two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Medchi Chem. and Pharma Ltd. vs. Biological E. Ltd. , reported in 2000 (2) A. I. Cr. LR 119. In the case of Rajesh Bajaj vs. State NCT of Delhi and ors. , reported in JT 1999 (2) SC 112, it was held that if a factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings. ( 16 ) IN the case of State of M. P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Anr. , reported in 2004 SCC (Cri) 353, it was observed that the exercise of inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to be made sparingly, carefully and with caution. It may be exercised (i) to give effect to an order under the code, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It was further observed that the Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused person. ( 17 ) MR. Moitra relying upon the decision in the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal vs. State of W. B. and Anr. , reported in 2002 (1) SCC 555 , submitted that criminal proceedings should not be quashed merely because of pendency of civil proceeding between the same parties, even if it be pending in a higher Court. The Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Khemka vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1993 (3) SCC 54 , observed that the power under section 482 of the Code has been vested in the High Court to quash a prosecution which amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. But that power cannot be exercised by the High court to hold a parallel trial. But that power cannot be exercised by the High court to hold a parallel trial. ( 18 ) IN the present case it cannot be denied that the civil suit under reference was filed subsequently to filing of a chargesheet and mere pendency of such a civil suit cannot by itself be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceeding. The Court cannot also be unmindful to the fact that the remedies available in the two forums are also of different nature. Mr. Moitra further submitted that if pendency of a civil suit, filed subsequently, could be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceeding, it will certainly and inevitably have far-reaching consequences. This will lead to a tendency on the part of the offenders of a crime to file civil case whenever possible in order to stall a criminal proceeding. ( 19 ) IN the present case, it is quite clear that there are allegations and counter-allegations made by the parties. The claims and counter-claims, as made before the Civil Court, do not essentially have any clash with the criminal case under reference. It is not only that the object and purpose of the two proceedings are different; the nature of relief sought for is also distinct and separate. Power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an inherent power, which can be exercised in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice, nor any abuse of the process of law. Such a power cannot be so exercised, which makes other provisions of the Code irrelevant or redundant. In that event, it also hurts the principle of harmonious construction. ( 20 ) HAVING regard to all these aspects, I do not find sufficient reason for agreeing with the learned counsel for the petitioners and it cannot be held that further proceedings of the case will, by any stretch of imagination, be an abuse of the process of Court. ( 21 ) AS such, the present application, being C. R. R. No. 2022 of 2005, be dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ( 22 ) THIS also disposes of C. R. A. N. No. 1714 of 2005. ( 23 ) SEND a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. ( 21 ) AS such, the present application, being C. R. R. No. 2022 of 2005, be dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ( 22 ) THIS also disposes of C. R. A. N. No. 1714 of 2005. ( 23 ) SEND a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court for information and necessary action. ( 24 ) DEPARTMENT is directed to supply xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, to the learned Counsel of the parties as expeditiously as possible. Application dismissed.