ORDER Petitioners 1 to 5 herein, who are respectively accused 1 to 5 in Crime No. 49 of 2010 of Siddapura Police Station, Virajpet, Kodagu District, have sought for quashing of the investigation in the said case. 2. Though this matter is listed today for admission, it is taken for final disposal and the arguments of Sri Ranjan Kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners-accused and Sri Vijayakumar Majage, the learned High Court Government Pleader are heard on merits. Perused the FIR in the said case, the complaint filed by one Smt. P.N. Shyla, on the basis of which the said FIR came to be registered and other documents produced by her learned Counsel for the petitioners. 3. Stated in brief the case of the prosecution as alleged in the complaint dated 18-2-2009 filed by the complainant, Smt. P.N. Shyla before the Siddapura Police Station is as under: (a) The complainant had lodged a previous complaint against the present petitioner Nos. 1, 4 and 5 respectively, Smt. P.N. Shobha, Puliyanda Sathya Madappa and C.P. Jaggu Bidappa, alleging that they committed the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On the basis of the said complaint, a case in Crime No. 136 of 2009 came to be registered against them for the said offences. During investigation in the said case, the Investigating Officer seized some wooden logs and reported the seizure to the learned Magistrate by submitting PF No. 95 of 2009. The said wooden logs were given to the custody of the complainant-Smt. P.N. Shyla on her executing an indemnity bond. (b) On 5-11-2009, the complainant took the said wooden logs to her custody and kept the same in her garden land. A few days thereafter, when she went to her garden and saw that the said wooden logs were found missing. Then she made enquiry and came to know that the said wooden logs were stolen by the petitioners-accused 2 to 5 at the instance of petitioner-accused 1, Smt. P.N. Shobha. Therefore, she lodged her present complaint before the police of Siddapura on 18-2-2009, on the basis of which, FIR No. 49 of2010 came to be issued against all these petitioners herein for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Therefore, she lodged her present complaint before the police of Siddapura on 18-2-2009, on the basis of which, FIR No. 49 of2010 came to be issued against all these petitioners herein for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners strongly contends that there has been a civil dispute between the 1st petitioner-Smt. P.N. Shobha and the complainant-Smt. P.N. Shyla and therefore a suit is pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Virajpet and the complainant, Smt. P.N. Shyla has lodged the previous complaint and also the present complaint making false allegations against these petitioners that they committed the offences as stated in the said complaints. He further contends that the dispute between the complainant and the petitioner 1 being of civil nature, all further investigation in FIR No. 49 of 2010 deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the wooden logs, which are the subject-matter in this case, were seized by the police of Siddapura in Crime No. 136 of 2009, which was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the very complainant herein against petitioners 1, 4 and 5 and they were given to the custody of the complainant on her executing indemnity bond and therefore it cannot be said that the matter involved in these cases is of civil nature. He further contends that dle averments in the complaint clearly establish prima facie case for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC against these petitioners and ever since the date of registration of this crime against them, these petitioners are absconding and are not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation and therefore the investigation at this earlier stage cannot be quashed. 6. On careful reading of the allegation in the complaint filed by the complainant viz., Smt. P.N. Shyla it is clear that she had filed previous complaint against petitioners 1, 4 and 5 alleging that they committed the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 506 read with Section 34 ofthe IPC and Crime No. 136 of 2009 came to be registered against them on the basis of the said complaint. It could be seen further from the averments in the present complaint that on 5-11-2009 she took the wooden logs to her custody from the police in the said case and had kept the same in her garden land and these petitioners are alleged to have committed theft of the said wooden logs. All these facts clearly establish prima facie case against these petitioners for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. 7. If there is a civil litigation between the 1st petitioner and the complainant and the wooden logs belong to the 1st petitioner herein, she would be at liberty to produce all the necessary materials before the Investigating Officer and establish her claim. Law is settled that if the averments in the complaint filed by the complainant before the police clearly establish prima facie any cognizable offence, the High Court would not be justified in quashing the investigation pursuant to the complaint in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Suneet Gupta v Anil Triloknath Sharma and Othersl. Relying on the said decision, he submits that since dispute involved between the 1st petitioner and the complainant herein being of civil nature, the investigation in the said FIR cannot be permitted to continue. Suffice it to say that the facts in the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the facts in the instant case are quite different and therefore the said decision is of no help to the petitioners. For the reasons aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.