ORDER 1. Petitioner seeks quash of proceedings in Crime No.457 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent. 2. The third respondent has preferred a complaint informing of his being engaged in business of cutting and raising granite over a period of twenty five years. He informed of entering upon such activity in respect of an extent of 11.59 and 3.15.5 hectares held by the petitioner, as Managing Director of M/s.Karunai Granites Private Limited. While the right to cut and raise granites from the property was that of the third respondent, this petitioner by engaging his own men, using machinery worth Rs.2 crores belonging to the third respondent, had lifted and stocked granite. When questioned, the petitioner had threatened to destroy the machinery and threatening to cause harm to them had prevented the third respondents’ men from removing the machinery. When approached, the petitioner informed of his having obtained orders of interim injunction in his favour and required the complainant to obtain his machinery through Court. The third respondent informed of the petitioner making false allegations, suppressing truth and obtaining two orders of interim injunction under orders in I.A.Nos.280 and 285 of 2013 in O.S.Nos.67 and 69 of 2013 respectively on 15.03.2013. Despite being informed that the petitioner had not obtained any orders as would entitle him to hold the third respondent machinery, the petitioner asked such respondent to approach Court. The petitioner also threatened of causing harm to both the person and machinery of the third respondent. The complainant has contended that though the petitioner had obtained orders of injunction against his entering the property, the petitioner was not entitled to hold on to the machinery. He has informed that machinery worth several crores were being damaged and were being put to use by persons who had no proper knowledge of operating the same. The petitioner after obtaining orders of injunction, had in the presence of panchayatdars, on 15.04.2013, agreed to pay the third respondent and one M.Ravindra Babu, proprietor of Madhu Granites, a sum of Rs.2,35,00,000/-. He has also undertaken to return the third respondent’s machinery. Such agreement was signed by the third respondent, the petitioner and M.Ravindra Babu. The petitioner had failed to effect payment and hand over machineries in keeping with the agreement dated 15.04.2013 and unjustly retained the machinery and was damaging the same by use thereof by untrained hands. He has also undertaken to return the third respondent’s machinery. Such agreement was signed by the third respondent, the petitioner and M.Ravindra Babu. The petitioner had failed to effect payment and hand over machineries in keeping with the agreement dated 15.04.2013 and unjustly retained the machinery and was damaging the same by use thereof by untrained hands. When questioned, the petitioner continued his wrong doing. Alleging thus, the third respondent had preferred a complaint requesting that his machinery be secured and for action against the petitioner. Upon such complaint, a case in Crime No.457 of 2013 for offences under sections 409, 420 and 506(i) IPC on the file of the first respondent, stands registered. 3. Heard learned senior counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as also learned senior counsel for third respondent. 4. Learned senior counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of M/s. Karunai Granites Private Limited and had quarrying right over 11.59.0 hectares and 3.15.5 hectares at Jagadevi Village, Bargur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. On 05.10.2006, the petitioner entered into a raising contract with M/s.Madhu Granites, a proprietory concern of one Ravindra Babu. Raising cost of Rs.9,000/- per cubic metre was agreed upon. The agreement provided for arbitration. Such agreement was only in respect of holding of 11.59.0 hectares. The related agreement to sell of even date in favour of M/s.Shama Exports, wherein Mr.M.Ravindra Babu, the proprietor of M/s. Madhu Granites (raising contractor) was a partner, provided for fluctuation in the agreed sale price of Rs.8,100 per cubic metre besides the raising cost of Rs.9,000/- per cubic metre. The agreement besides setting out specific terms provided for continuous quarry operations, minimum supply and purchases as also terms to be met upon failure of either side. The agreement was for the balance period of lease upto 02.02.2010 and was to be renewed in the event of quarrying lease being renewed by Government of Tamil Nadu and on the terms and conditions then mutually agreed upon. The same also provided for termination by notice. A similar arrangement was entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of 3.15.5 hectares under Raising Contract cum Sale Agreement dated 01.04.2008. The agreement was valid for a period of three years and renewable upon mutually agreed terms and conditions. Learned senior counsel submits that no such renewal had taken place. A similar arrangement was entered into between the petitioner and the third respondent in respect of 3.15.5 hectares under Raising Contract cum Sale Agreement dated 01.04.2008. The agreement was valid for a period of three years and renewable upon mutually agreed terms and conditions. Learned senior counsel submits that no such renewal had taken place. Under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.04.2008, the terms of raising cum sale agreement were modified and the third respondent/complainant was required to and paid a sum of Rs.1 crore as advance to the petitioner. Such sum was not to carry interest and was to be adjusted by deducting 40% out of the agreed 30% proceeds to be payable to the petitioner as sale consideration. The agreement provided for arbitration. Learned senior counsel submits that as the period of three years from the date of original agreement expired on 30.11.2011 and the same had not been renewed, the third respondent ought to have removed his machinery. The third respondent had been permitted to conduct operations under a lease cum raising agreement. The payment terms and method of adjustment of the advance sum had been agreed upon. Till date, there was no account of how much granite had been excavated and therefore, it cannot be contended that the advance of Rs.1 crore paid by the third respondent was still available and had not been adjusted in the manner agreed. It is for the complainant to specify how much money is still owing to him and the third respondent/complainant failed to provide any details there regards. The third respondent abruptly stopped quarrying operations and removed his machineries. It was the third respondent who used the petitioner’s monies. In between the complainant had been in custody. The petitioner’s repeated demands for payment of dues were not met. Suddenly, on 27.02.2013, the third respondent brought his men and machinery and started excavation work. The petitioner contacted the third respondent over cell phone, informed him that the agreement had lapsed on 30.11.2011, that the third respondent had not responded to the notice issued by the petitioner under courier and that the third respondent absolutely having no right was conducting himself unlawfully. The third respondent had demanded that the quarry be sold to him and that the petitioner and his men remove themselves from the site. The third respondent had demanded that the quarry be sold to him and that the petitioner and his men remove themselves from the site. The third respondent had threatened of conducting quarrying operations using thousands of his men and that he would do away with all who stood in his way. The petitioner had preferred a complaint on 01.03.2013, approached Court and obtained orders of injunction on 15.03.2013. Even when injunction orders were in force, the petitioner had been, in the presence of police, forced to enter into a compromise agreement on 15.04.2013 as though he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.2,35,00,000/-. Such Muchalika did not inform how such money was due. The petitioner had issued a legal notice to police authorities on 21.05.2013. As the complaint preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent failed to evoke any response, the petitioner approached learned Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri and obtained orders under 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 09.07.2013. Learned Judicial Magistrate had directed that the First Information Report be sent to the Court on or before 31.07.2013. However, on 19.09.2013, the third respondent had obtained an order of interim stay at the hands of this Court under orders in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.R.C.No.1103 of 2013. The First Information Report in Crime No.457 of 2013 on the file of the first respondent against this petitioner had been registered on the complaint of the third respondent on 27.09.2013. In the affidavit filed in M.P.No.2 of 2013, the third respondent had informed that the sums paid by him and Ravindra Babu were to be adjusted towards monthly royalty payable by them to this petitioner and that this petitioner had failed to carry out such commitment. However, therein the third respondent had put up a fresh case of slump in granite market through out the world following the financial rescission in USA and of stoppage of quarrying operations for such and other reasons and of the petitioner having agreed to deduct non-business period from the total period of agreement. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no document of such agreement. Learned senior counsel contends that it was apparent that the issue was no more than a civil dispute. Even if the Muchalika dated 15.04.2013 is to be taken as true, mere non-payment of sums agreed to be paid therein would not constitute offence of cheating. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no document of such agreement. Learned senior counsel contends that it was apparent that the issue was no more than a civil dispute. Even if the Muchalika dated 15.04.2013 is to be taken as true, mere non-payment of sums agreed to be paid therein would not constitute offence of cheating. No machineries had been entrusted to the petitioner and as such Section 406 IPC would not stand attracted. The complaint had been preferred after a delay of two years only towards harassing the petitioner and forcing him to effect payment. Learned senior counsel submits that both the petitioner and the third respondent are persons of substantial means and they should be required to work out their remedies before civil forums. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner would file an affidavit informing that he had no objection to the third respondent removing his machineries from the premises. 5. Mr.N.R. Elango, learned senior counsel for third respondent submits that a bare reading of the complaint would inform commission of offence under section 406 IPC. The mere provision for arbitration between the parties cannot stand in the way of registration of a case and investigation thereupon when the complaint on the face of it informs cognizable offences. Merely by suggesting malafides or that there were no accounts regarding the transaction between the parties, the prosecution cannot be avoided. The delay in preferring the First Information Report was because the petitioner all along had agreed to effect payment. The muchalika dated 15.04.2013 was an admission that a sum of Rs. 2,35,00,000/- was owed by the petitioner to the third respondent/ complainant. Though the petitioner had caused legal notice to the police authorities on 21.05.2013, a date subsequent to the muchalika, there is no whispher therein that any force was used against him towards obtaining the same. Therefore, the contention of his having been forced to enter upon muchalika was only an afterthought. Under the muchalika, the petitioner had agreed to effect repayment and presently, an offer stands made for filing an affidavit informing that the petitioner had no objection to the third respondent taking his machineries. The wrongful holding of funds belonging to the third respondent as also wrongful use of machinery and damage caused to the machinery belonging to him were illegal activities. 6. Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code defines “Illegal. The wrongful holding of funds belonging to the third respondent as also wrongful use of machinery and damage caused to the machinery belonging to him were illegal activities. 6. Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code defines “Illegal. Legally bound to do” as follows: “The word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit.” Therefore, what illegality or offences stand committed by the petitioner are matters for investigation. Though learned senior counsel for third respondent relies on judgment of the Apex Court in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police and Another AIR 2002 SC 3372 : (2002) 8 SCC 87 , towards submitting that the decision of the civil Court would be relevant in criminal proceedings only if conditions of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act are satisfied and that such findings cannot be said to be conclusive except as provided in Section 41 of such Act, this Court need not deal with the issue since no final finding has been rendered by any civil Court in proceedings between the parties. 7. Mr. B. Kumar, learned senior counsel, by way of reply, submits that the third respondent in his complaint dated 13.03.2013 had informed of the petitioner requiring him to take back his machineries. Therefore, the present allegation of this petitioner holding and misusing the same are wrong. Learned senior counsel would reiterate that the petitioner has no objection to the third respondent removing his machineries from the premises. 8. Though this Court herein above has recorded the detailed submissions of either side, all of them do not call for consideration. What is sought by way of the present petition is a quash of a First Information Report, an exercise to be entered upon only in a rare case. The complaint of the third respondent informs of wrongful holding of monies due to him by the petitioner, of the petitioner misusing and causing damage to machineries belonging to him and of his issuing threats of damage to person and property. There is an admission of monies owed by the petitioner to the de facto complainant in the muchalika dated 15.04.2013. There is an admission of monies owed by the petitioner to the de facto complainant in the muchalika dated 15.04.2013. As has been rightly pointed out, even in the notice caused to the police authorities, much after the date of muchalika, no mention of use of any force against the petitioner towards his executing the same is informed. Even presently, the presence of machineries belonging to the third respondent in the premises of the petitioner stands admitted. The complaint of third respondent does inform commission of cognizable offences and it would but be proper that due investigation be conducted in the case registered thereupon. 9. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.