ORDER : Petitioners are challenging proceedings in P.C.R. No. 8908/2015 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. 2. Heard Shri Ram Mohan A., learned Advocate for petitioners No.1 to 7 and 9. He is also the petitioner No.8 in this petition. 3. Brief facts of the case are, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the owners of property bearing No.208, Old No.145, 3rd Main Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore. Petitioner No.3 is the Builder. In the year 2006, the owners of the property entered into a joint development agreement with the builder. In terms of the agreement, owners were entitled to four flats and the Builder was entitled to five flats. The building construction was completed in the year 2008. It appears sometime in the year 2006, the Builder had assigned his rights in favour of the complainant first respondent. Petitioners No.4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are purchasers of the flats. In 2008, civil litigations ensued between the prospective purchasers of the flats on one hand and petitioners No.1 to 3 and the complainant on the other hand. The prospective purchasers filed four suits in the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, namely, O.S.No.7498/2008, O.S.No.164/2009, O.S.No.5391/2009 and O.S.No.2123/2009. The suits were decreed and sale deeds were executed in favour of petitioners No. 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. One of the flats was sold in favour of petitioner No.9 by the owners and the builder. 4. The builder has also filed a suit in O.S.No.6838/2009 against petitioners No.1 and 2 seeking specific performance of alleged deed of assignment in his favour and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his share in the property. In 2015, the complainant filed the instant complaint contending inter-alia, that the petitioners had committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 and 120(B) read with Section 149 of IPC. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that too interse between the builder and respondent No.1, who claims to be the assignee. Therefore, as far as petitioners are concerned, the complaint is frivolous and accordingly, prayed for quashing the same. 6. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the dispute is purely civil in nature and that too interse between the builder and respondent No.1, who claims to be the assignee. Therefore, as far as petitioners are concerned, the complaint is frivolous and accordingly, prayed for quashing the same. 6. Sri B.S. Raghu Prasad, learned Advocate for the complainant – respondent No.1 urged the following contentions: • that, though petitioners No.1 and 2 had no right, they had received sale consideration from petitioner No.9 and executed a sale deed; • that, the builder had lost all his rights in the property after executing the Assignment Deed in favour of complainant on 17.04.2007; • that, petitioners No.4 to 7 have paid the sale consideration to the builder who had no right to receive the same. Therefore, the said acts on the part of the petitioners are punishable under Section 420 IPC; and • that, when the complainant questioned the locus-standi of the petitioners, they abused him in foul language, compelling him to file the instant complaint. 7. Sri. Raghu Prasad, argued that this Court should not hold a rowing enquiry into the contents of the complaint and interfere at this stage. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned advocates for the parties and perused material papers on record. 9. Indisputable facts of the case are, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the land owners and petitioner No.3 is the Builder. Petitioners No.4 to 7 have obtained their sale deeds after approaching the City Civil Court, Bengaluru in the aforementioned four suits. So far as the execution of sale deed in favour of petitioner No.9 is concerned, the aspect as to whether petitioners No.1 and 2 were entitled to receive the consideration amount and execute the sale deed can be decided only in a civil suit. It is relevant to note that the builder has instituted a civil suit in the year 2009 for specific performance of deed of assignment and the complainant has filed the criminal complaint in the year 2015. 10. It is relevant to note that the builder has instituted a civil suit in the year 2009 for specific performance of deed of assignment and the complainant has filed the criminal complaint in the year 2015. 10. The conspectus of facts recorded herein above leads to an irresistible inference that the matter is purely civil in nature and it is sought to be given the colour of a criminal case in order to file the instant private complaint, which in my opinion, falls within the definition of ‘abuse of process of Court’ warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Resultantly, this petition must succeed and it is accordingly allowed. Consequently, all proceedings in PCR No.8908/2015 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. No costs.