Judgment 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner/7th respondent to call for the records pertaining to I.A.No.47 of 2012 in C.C.No.25 of 2010 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (Special) Court (TNPID) Madurai and quash the same. 2. The petitioner has categorically stated in the present petition that the respondent Police registered a case in Cr.No.9 of 2005 for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C and Section 5 of the TNPID Act against the petitioner. It is alleged that A-2 and A-4 collected the deposits in the name of A-1 and defaulted to return the deposited amount of Rs.2,01,69,071/- and the interest after the maturity to 220 depositors. Further, the petitioner admitted in the present petition that one of the depositors has filed a petition before the Court of the Tamil Nadu Protection of the Interest of the Depositors (Special) (TNPID), Madurai to attach the property with an extent of 1 cent and 250 sq.ft, worth about Rs.8 lakhs and to sell the property in public auction and the same has been numbered as I.A.No.47 of 2012. The petitioner has further submitted that notice has been issued by the said Court of TNPID, Madurai to the respondents including the petitioners herein and the same is unsustainable. Further, the petitioner has stated that he is a bonafide purchaser without notice. Further, it is stated in the present petition that in respect of the property of 1 cent and 250 sq. ft, there is no malafide transfer. 3. From the above mentioned admissions of the petitioner and also from the records available, it is crystal clear that I.A.No.47 of 2012 has been filed on the file of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (Special) Court (TANPID), Madurai by one of the depositors to attach the property to an extent of 1 Cent and 250 sq.ft and to sell the property in public auction and the same has been numbered as I.A.No.47 of 2012 and it is evident from the details enclosed at Page No.5 of the typed set of papers. 4. 4. Further, in a decision reported in AIR 1985 SC 472 (Ram Sumer Puri v. State of U.P.), it has been held as follows: "When a civil litigation is pending for the property wherein the question of possession is involved and has been adjudicated, initiation of a parallel criminal proceeding under Section 145 of the Code would not be justified. The parallel proceedings should not be permitted to continue and the event of a decree of the civil Court, the criminal Court should not be allowed to invoke its jurisdiction particularly when possession is being examined by the civil Court and parties are in a position to approach the civil Court for interim orders such as injunction or appointment of receiver for adequate protection of the property during pendency of the dispute. Multiplicity of litigation is not in the interest of the parties nor should public time be allowed to be wasted over meaningless litigation." 5. In the present case also, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the petitioner herein can very well put forth his contentions before the Court of the Tamil Nadu Protection of the Interest of the Depositors (Special) (TNPID), Madurai and get appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Hence, it is found that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. 6. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner herein to work out his remedy in accordance with law before the competent Court, as allegations made by the parties have not been adjudicated and it is also left open to be adjudicated before the appropriate forum. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.