JUDGMENT : K.S. MUDAGAL, J. 1. Petitioners in this case are seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No. 11651/2015 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of Crime No. 33/2013 of Basavanagudi police station. 2. The said case was registered against the petitioners and another on the basis of complaint dated 21.02.2013 as per Annexure-A filed by respondent No. 2. 3. Sri Sosale Vysaraya Mutt is denomination of Madva sect which owns movable and immovable properties. Prior to petitioner No. 1's anointing as Peetadhipathi, Shri Vidhya Manohara Theertha Swamiji was head of said peeta. Petitioner No. 1 was paternal grandson of said Sri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertharu. Said Shri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertha Swamiji anointed petitioner No. 1 on 04.09.2004 as his successor to the said mutt. 4. One Sri Vyasaraja Seva Samithi filed O.S. No. 16617/2006 against Sri Vyasaraj Mutt (Sosale) represented by Sri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertharu, present petitioner No. 1 and two others for permanent injunction. In that suit, Commissioner was appointed to take inventory of the movables of the mutt. On 07th and 08th of September, 2006, Commissioner conducted inventory in the presence of Shri Vidya Manohara Theertha Swamiji and petitioner No. 1 and that was submitted to the Court in O.S. No. 16617/2006. 5. On the demise of Shri Vidya Manohara Theertha Swamiji on 21.11.2007, petitioner No. 1 succeeded him as Peetadhipathi of the said mutt. In 2012, on the allegations of misappropriation and maladministration in the mutt, Government vide Govt. Order No. RD 67 MuDaPra 2002, Bangalore, dated 26.05.2012 appointed administrator for administration of the corporeal affairs of Sosale Vysaraya Mutt and its other branches. 6. In terms of the said Government Order, Sri K. Jairaj, Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Karnataka was appointed as administrator. On 17.06.2012, a team of officers working under the said administrator visited Sosale Vysaraya Mutt, Mysore and took inventory of the valuables, jewellary and pooja articles of the mutt in the Sosale Vysaraya Mutt, Mysore. 7. On 21.02.2013, respondent No. 2 filed complaint before Basavanagudi police against petitioners and another alleging that 17 valuable items submitted during inventory/report of 2006 in OS No. 16617/2006 were missing, while taking subsequent inventory on 17.06.2012. He further alleged that while conducting inventory in 2006, those articles were entrusted to petitioner No. 1 for safe custody and that was recorded in the inventory. He further alleged that while conducting inventory in 2006, those articles were entrusted to petitioner No. 1 for safe custody and that was recorded in the inventory. He further alleged that in reply to the letter dated 02.07.2012 regarding missing articles petitioner No. 1 contended that they are in his safe custody at the Benne Govindappa Road Premises of Mutt at Bangalore but failed to produce those articles. He further alleged that petitioners in collusion with others have misappropriated those 17 articles in violation of injunction order granted against them. He alleged that out of other valuables produced in the second inventory, some were replaced by duplicate articles defrauding the mutt for personal gain of the petitioners. 8. On the basis of such complaint, Basavanagudi police registered FIR in Crime No. 33/2013 on 21.02.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 420 and 405 of IPC. After conducting investigation, Basavanagudi police filed charge sheet on 15.04.2015 against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 120B and 403 of IPC. 9. It is alleged in the charge sheet that out of 17 missing articles, accused No. 1 has handed over two gold plates to his mother and she pledged them with a pawn broker in Mysore. In that regard, Laxmipuram Police, Mysore registered Crime No. 170/2011 against petitioner No. 1, his mother and brother for the offences punishable under Section 406, 408 and 420 of IPC. The charge sheet further alleges that out of remaining 15 articles, some valuable articles shown at page Nos.44 and 45 of the inventory proved to be only silver articles polished with gold and petitioners have committed offences of misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating and conspiracy. 10. On the basis of said charge sheet, learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 403 of IPC and issued process to the petitioners to take up trial for those offences. In this petition, petitioners seek quashing of those proceedings. 11. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for Smt. Sharada, advocate on record for petitioners assail the impugned proceedings on the following grounds: (i) Petitioner No. 1 being Matadhipathi has right over the properties of the mutt akin to that of the proprietary rights. Therefore, retaining the 17 articles with him does not amount to misappropriation. 11. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for Smt. Sharada, advocate on record for petitioners assail the impugned proceedings on the following grounds: (i) Petitioner No. 1 being Matadhipathi has right over the properties of the mutt akin to that of the proprietary rights. Therefore, retaining the 17 articles with him does not amount to misappropriation. (ii) During first inventory in 2006, petitioner No. 1 was not matadhipathi and he cannot be held liable, if some articles were found missing between 2006-2007 i.e. before he taking charge as head of the mutt. (iii) To harass petitioner No. 1 the complainant and other persons are prosecuting multiple parallel civil and criminal proceedings against the petitioners in respect of the very subject matter. Therefore, present complaint is abuse of process of Court. (iv) The allegation made against the petitioners do not constitute offences for which charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken. Therefore, the proceedings require to be quashed. 12. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Commissioner HRE vs. L.T. Swamiar, (1954) AIR SC 282 2. Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs. Balusami Ayyar, (1921) 7 LAWS (PVC) 43 PC 3. Robert John D Souza vs. Stephen V. Gomes, (2015) 9 SCC 96 4. Mohd. Ibrahim vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 5. Binod Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 10 SCC 663 6. R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta, (2009) 1 SCC 516 7. Paramjit Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 8. Vesa Holdings Private Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (2015) 8 SCC 293 9. Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 13. Per contra, Sri C.V. Sudhindra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Smt. Namita, learned HCGP seek to justify the impugned order on the following grounds: (i) Admittedly, petitioner No. 1 was anointed as junior pontiff in 2004. Due to the ill health of Sri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertharu, petitioner No. 1 was managing the affairs of the mutt and had domain over that. Petitioner No. 1 was signatory to inventory of 2006 and was also party to OS No. 16617/2006. That itself shows that he was entrusted with properties. (ii) During second inventory in 2012, 17 articles were missing. Petitioner No. 1 though claimed that he is in possession of those 17 articles failed to produce them. Petitioner No. 1 was signatory to inventory of 2006 and was also party to OS No. 16617/2006. That itself shows that he was entrusted with properties. (ii) During second inventory in 2012, 17 articles were missing. Petitioner No. 1 though claimed that he is in possession of those 17 articles failed to produce them. The charge sheet records show that several articles produced during investigation were proved fake which amounts to cheating and misappropriation. (iii) In the judgments of the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar's case and Sri Vidya Varuthi Thirtha's case relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioners themselves, it is held that pontiff is a trustee to the properties of the mutt and accountable for that. (iv) If charge sheet papers prima-facie make out offences, the pendency of civil disputes do not bar the criminal proceeding. (v) The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. shall be sparingly exercised, certainly not in the cases having prima-facie material in the charge sheet in support of the allegations. (vi) It is open to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief at appropriate stage like seeking discharge and facing trial. 14. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments: 1. Vidhya Varuthi Thirtha vs. Balusami Ayyar, (1922) AIR PC 123 2. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar, (1954) AIR SC 282 3. H.H. Sudhundra Thirtha Swamiar vs. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments, Mysore, (1963) AIR SC 966 4. A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom Board and Others, (2007) AIR SC 3162 5. Sri Vidyamanohara Thirtha Swamigalu vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 2 Kar. LJ 466 6. Neelakanthrao vs. Vaijinath Swamy and Others, RSA No. 7501/2010 7. Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi & Others vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) AIR SC 439 9. Jaikrishnadas Manohardas Desai and Others vs. State of Bombay, (1960) AIR SC 889 10. Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India, (1959) AIR SC 1390 11. Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 12. Keshava Acharya vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Pet. No. 6306/2013 13. State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa and Others, (2002) AIR SC 671 14. State of H.P. vs. Karanvir, (2006) AIR SC 2211 Re-scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 12. Keshava Acharya vs. State of Karnataka, Crl. Pet. No. 6306/2013 13. State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa and Others, (2002) AIR SC 671 14. State of H.P. vs. Karanvir, (2006) AIR SC 2211 Re-scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The legal position consistently about exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is that the High Court shall exercise such powers sparingly and cautiously. At that stage, the Court has to arrive at a conclusion based on the material produced before it and not by discerning the material sitting in the arm chair of the adversary or by mock trial. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Thapar vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 has laid down the following guidelines for exercising the inherent powers by the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings: "28. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations leveled by the prosecution/ complainant against the accused. It is not a stage for determining how weighty the defences raised on behalf of the accused are. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations leveled by the prosecution/complaint, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complaint, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed by establishing his defences by producing evidence in accordance with law. There is endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of charges leveled, and have placed material before the court, prima-facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations leveled, trial must be held. 29. There is endless list of judgments rendered by this Court declaring legal position that in a case where the prosecution/complainant has leveled allegations bringing out all ingredients of charges leveled, and have placed material before the court, prima-facie evidencing the truthfulness of the allegations leveled, trial must be held. 29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecutions/ complainant's case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied, that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice. 30. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashment raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 30.1. Step one: whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable i.e. the material is of sterling and impeccable quality? 30.2. Step two: whether the material relied upon by the accused would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused i.e. the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint i.e. the material is such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false? 30.3. Step three: whether the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant and/or the material is such that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? 30.4. Step four: whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court and would not serve the ends of justice? 30.5. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, the judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as proceedings arising therefrom) specially when it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused." (Emphasis supplied) 17. In the light of the above judgment this Court has to see whether the petitioners' case passes the aforesaid tests. As already stated, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings on the following two folds: (i) Complaint and other records do not constitute the offence alleged. (ii) Respondents are pursuing parallel civil proceedings thereby the proceedings under challenge amount to abuse of process of Court. Regarding allegations not constituting the offences: 18. As already stated, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the proceedings on the following two folds: (i) Complaint and other records do not constitute the offence alleged. (ii) Respondents are pursuing parallel civil proceedings thereby the proceedings under challenge amount to abuse of process of Court. Regarding allegations not constituting the offences: 18. Under this head, the contentions of the petitioners are three folds: (i) Petitioner No. 1 being the Seer of the Mutt has proprietary right over the properties. Therefore, he utilizing or appropriating properties do not amount to misappropriation, breach of trust or cheating; (ii) He became Seer of the Mutt only in the year 2007 on the death of Shri Vidya Vachaspathi Theertha Swamiji; he cannot be held liable if properties went missing between 2006 and 2007. (iii) To constitute the offence under Section 420 of IPC, there is no inducement or delivery etc. 19. Relying on the judgment in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar's case referred to supra, the petitioners' Counsel contends that as per the said judgment, the Seer of the Mutt has the proprietary rights. In para 12 of the said judgment though it was held that the Mahant of a Mutt has a beneficial interest in the properties of the Mutt, it was further held as follows: "12. It is true that beneficial interest which he enjoys is appurtenant to his duties and as he is in charge of a public institution, reasonable restrictions can always be placed upon his rights in the interest of public....." (Emphasis supplied) 20. In the case on hand, the allegations against the petitioner No. 1 was that he was exercising his rights over the properties prejudicial to the interest of the institution and he was misappropriating them. 21. The charge sheet records state that out of 17 articles, petitioner No. 1 handed over two articles to his mother and she in turn pledged them with a pawn broker at Mysuru and in that regard, Laxmipuram Police registered Crime No. 170/2011 against petitioner No. 1 and his mother etc. for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of IPC. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom's case referred supra relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 held as follows: "10. for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of IPC. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the judgment in A.A. Gopalakrishnan vs. Cochin Devaswom's case referred supra relied upon by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 held as follows: "10. The properties of deities, temples and Devaswom Boards, require to be protected and safeguarded by their Trustees/Archaks/Sebaits/employees. Instances are many where persons entrusted with the duty of managing and safeguarding the properties of temples, deities and Devaswom Boards have usurped and misappropriated such properties by setting up false claims of ownership or tenancy, or adverse possession. This is possible only with the passing or active collusion of the concerned authorities. Such acts of 'fences eating the crops' should be dealt with sternly. The Government, members or trustees of Boards/Trusts, and devotees should be vigilant to prevent any such usurpation or encroachment. It is also the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation." (Emphasis supplied) 23. Having regard to the aforesaid two judgments, the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 has proprietary rights in the properties and therefore, whatever appropriation or utilization of the properties he makes do not attract any offences and allegations do not constitute any offences cannot be accepted. 24. The next question is whether petitioners cannot be held accountable, if the properties went missing between 2006-07. As per charge sheet records, petitioner No. 1 was signatory to the inventory of 2006. Apart from that, charge sheet contains copy of reply of petitioner No. 1 dated 10.07.2012 to the notice of the administrator dated 02.07.2012. In that reply petitioner No. 1 claims that all the articles are with him. Therefore, it can be said that petitioner No. 1 has not placed any indubitable materials before this Court to rebut the allegations as held in Rajiv Thapar's case. 25. Third contention of the petitioners under this head is that allegations made against petitioner No. 1 do not constitute offence under Sections 406, 420, 403, 120B of IPC for which charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken. 26. Sections 403, 405 and 406 of IPC which deal with misappropriation and criminal breach of trust read as follows: "403. 25. Third contention of the petitioners under this head is that allegations made against petitioner No. 1 do not constitute offence under Sections 406, 420, 403, 120B of IPC for which charge sheet is filed and cognizance is taken. 26. Sections 403, 405 and 406 of IPC which deal with misappropriation and criminal breach of trust read as follows: "403. Dishonest misappropriation of property Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 405. Criminal breach of trust Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust." 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 27. As per charge sheet records, petitioner No. 1 though contended that he possessed 17 articles did not produce them during second inventory held in 2012 by the office of the Administrator. According to the charge sheet records, 17 articles were missing, out of that two gold plates were pledged which became subject matter of another criminal case. The other articles produced during investigation as per the charge sheet records were found to be fake. 28. Since petitioner No. 1 himself admitted possession of the property on his anointing as Seer of mutt, prima-facie there is case of entrustment. In State of H.P. vs. Karanvir's case referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "11. The actual manner of misappropriation, it is well settled, is not required to be proved by the prosecution. Once entrustment is proved, it was for the accused to prove as to how the property entrusted to him was dealt with in view of Section 405 of IPC. The actual manner of misappropriation, it is well settled, is not required to be proved by the prosecution. Once entrustment is proved, it was for the accused to prove as to how the property entrusted to him was dealt with in view of Section 405 of IPC. If the respondent had failed to produce any material for this purpose, the prosecution should not suffer therefore." (Emphasis supplied) 29. Section 415 and Section 420 of IPC which deal with offence of cheating read as follows: "415. Cheating Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat." 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 30. Referring to Sections 415 and 420 of IPC, it was contended that there is no inducement to anybody or delivery of property to any person or consent of any person to retain any property or intentional inducement to do or omit to do something, therefore, no case under Section 420 of IPC is made out. 31. Contention of the complainant-prosecution is that petitioner No. 1 accepted the office of Seer of mutt with promise or inducement to the devotees of the mutt that he takes care of mutt and its valuables and based on such promise or inducement, properties donated by devotees were entrusted to his custody and he has converted them to his own use, thereby wrongful loss is caused to the mutt and trust of the devotees is breached. 32. 32. As already stated, petitioner No. 1 admitted possession of the property which amounts to entrustment and apparently that is only based on his acceptance of the office of Seer of the mutt. As per charge sheet records, later some of the valuable movables entrusted to the custody of petitioner No. 1 were found missing and were converted for own use of petitioner No. 1 and some articles produced during the investigation were found to be fake. Therefore, at this stage, contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that allegations against the petitioners do not constitute offence of cheating, misappropriation, breach of trust etc cannot be accepted. 33. According to the charge sheet records, petitioner No. 1 appointed petitioner No. 2 as administrator of the mutt and he had responsibility of safe guarding valuable properties of the mutt. As per charge sheet records, petitioner No. 1 entered into conspiracy with petitioner No. 2 and both of them are parties to the offences alleged. 34. In the petition, petitioners themselves say that petitioner No. 1 was peethadhipathi and petitioner No. 2 was administrator appointed by peethadhipathi to Vyasaraja Mutt Sosale. 35. Any corporate affairs of the mutt relating to the properties generally cannot take place unless the same is processed or approved by administrator. Petitioner No. 2 does not claim that petitioner No. 1 by passing him or against his advice retained the properties. Therefore, it cannot be said that no offence of Section 120B of IPC is made out. 36. At this stage, this Court has to consider the materials placed by the prosecution and the petitioners. If the petitioners place any indubitable material which complainant or prosecution cannot deny or material is of sterling and impeccable nature, it may call for quashing of the proceedings. No such material is placed by the petitioners in this case. Regarding abuse of process of Court 37. Petitioners contend that complainant and his people are pursuing parallel civil remedy, therefore, criminal prosecution under challenge amounts to abuse of process of Court. 38. Whether parallel civil proceedings totally bar criminal proceedings was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binod Kumar's case relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners themselves. Regarding abuse of process of Court 37. Petitioners contend that complainant and his people are pursuing parallel civil remedy, therefore, criminal prosecution under challenge amounts to abuse of process of Court. 38. Whether parallel civil proceedings totally bar criminal proceedings was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Binod Kumar's case relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners themselves. In para 12 of the said judgment relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 it was held as follows: "12...........(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not." (Emphasis supplied) 39. Having regard to said judgment and material on record the contention that complainant and his people have availed other civil remedy, therefore criminal case amounts to abuse of process of Court carries no merit. 40. The petition does not pass Rajiv Thapar's case tests to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. Having regard to the discussions made out, this Court does not find it necessary to refer to the other judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel on both sides. The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending IAs do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of accordingly. 41. Observations made in this order shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the defence of the petitioners which they may raise at the later stages of the proceedings.