JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by petitioners-accused Nos.5, 2, 1, 6, 7 and 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR in Crime No.145/2016 of Begur Police, pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gundlupete for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 3. Though this case is listed for admission, with consent of the learned counsel the same is taken up for final disposal. 4. The factual matrix of the case are that petitioner and respondent No.2 entered into a partnership firm under the name and style of M/S.Sai Priya Hema Krishna Associates and they entered into a lease deed to carry out the business in Sy.No.190 and 191/1 of Hirikati Village, Begur Hobli. A lease deed was got executed by respondent No.2 in favour of the said firm and the said firm was having absolute ownership over the property. It is further contended that after acquiring the property, the partnership firm was reconstituted under the deed of partnership and carried on a business without any interference from any of the partner. It is alleged that on 24.9.2016 there was unlawful interference by respondent No.2, her husband and two others. The Managing Partner of the said firm filed the complaint. As the respondent-police declined to receive the complaint, they filed a suit O.S.No.249/2016 before the learned Civil Judge, Gundlupet and the learned Civil Judge by order dated 4.10.2016 granted temporary injunction. It is further alleged that subsequently the petitioners-accused came to know that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint on 9.10.2016 in Crime No.145/2016 alleging that the accused persons have committed the offence under Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC. Challenging the same, the petitioners-accused are before this Court. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners-accused and respondent No.2 are the partners of the said firm. When they are the partners and in joint possession of the schedule properties, then under such circumstances, committing of an offence as alleged will not be attracted. 5. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners-accused and respondent No.2 are the partners of the said firm. When they are the partners and in joint possession of the schedule properties, then under such circumstances, committing of an offence as alleged will not be attracted. It is his further submission that when there was an interference of respondent No.2, he approached the Civil Court and obtained an injunction order on 4.10.2016. When an injunction order was there, there is no question of dispossessing respondent No.2. It is his further submission that there were registered sale deed and lease deed to show that the Company or the firm was in possession of the said properties and a civil suit is also pending in O.S.No.249/2016 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet. Then under such circumstances it is purely a civil dispute, by abuse of process of law, a false complaint has been filed. It is his further contention that even if the entire complaint is read, none of the ingredients of the offences alleged against them are attracted. Even if the entire investigation is completed, then under such circumstances, it is nothing but abuse of process of law and the petitioners are called as an accused and their rights and liberties are going to be affected in this behalf. When there is no material as against the petitioners-accused, they cannot be arrayed as an accused. It is his further submission that respondent No.2 only with an intention to usurp and grab the entire property, belonging to the petitioners-accused, with a dishonest intention registered a false complaint. It is his further submission that when the facts disclosed that the matter in issue is purely a civil dispute, then under such circumstances the proceedings initiated by virtue of filing the complaint is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that the civil rights have been converted into a criminal offence only by resorting to pressure, tactics by taking the help of the police. In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma and Others reported in (2008)3 SCC (Cri.) 920 . In order to substantiate his said contention, he has relied upon the decision in the case of Suneet Gupta v. Anil Triloknath Sharma and Others reported in (2008)3 SCC (Cri.) 920 . It is his further submission that under what circumstances the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised has been illustrated by the Honble Apex Court. In this behalf he relied upon the decision in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 . On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 vehemently argued and contended that the contents of the complaint and other material clearly and prima facie show the offences committed by the accused persons. They by trespassing into the property which was in possession of respondent No.2 have committed the alleged offences. It is his further submission that on 24.9.2016 there was an agreement between the parties and the firm was taken over by the partner-respondent No.2 and on the same day the amount and other materials pertaining to the firm were taken out and the possession was handed over in favour of respondent No.2. Thereafter, only with an intention to trespass the property, they have damaged the compound wall and committed the alleged offence. It is his further submission that by suppressing the true and material facts they got obtained an injunction order in O.S.No.249/2016 and subsequently the said injunction order was got affected on 25.1.2017. It is his further submission that subsequently a criminal revision petition was also filed and the same came to be dismissed. It is his further submission that against the said registration of the crime the petitioners-accused approached for grant of anticipatory bail and the said application was also came to be dismissed. It is his further submission that the alleged incident has taken place on 8.10.2016 and immediately the complaint has been registered. It is his further submission that CCTV footage and other material substantiate the contention of the complainant. He further submitted that one more complaint was got registered on 26.4.2017, immediately after vacating the injunction when the accused persons were tried to take away the life of the complainant. It is his further submission that CCTV footage and other material substantiate the contention of the complainant. He further submitted that one more complaint was got registered on 26.4.2017, immediately after vacating the injunction when the accused persons were tried to take away the life of the complainant. In that light, a case has been registered in Crime No.133/2017 and after investigation the charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.389/2019. It is his further submission that when prima facie offence has been made out, then under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings or the FIR cannot be quashed. It is his further submission that this Court can exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only if there is abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that it is actually the petitioners-accused have abused the process of law, not the complainant. This aspect has to be considered and appreciated only after complete investigation and the material placed on record. It is his further submission that investigation has been stayed and as such complete investigation has not been conducted. If a time stipulation has been imposed and a permission is granted to investigate into the matter, the truth will come before the Court. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State vehemently argued and submitted that in view of the stay granted by this Court, further investigation has been stopped and no further investigation has been taken place. It is his further submission that by reading the contents of the complaint and other material there is a prima facie material as against the petitioners-accused. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 9. The Honble Apex Court time and again has issued directions and guidelines as to how and in what manner the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised. In that light, it has been observed in catena of decisions that the inherent jurisdiction is the wide power and it has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 10. In that light, it has been observed in catena of decisions that the inherent jurisdiction is the wide power and it has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution to give effect to an order under the Code to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. 10. In the case of Bhajan Lal and others quoted supra at paragraph No.102, the salient features to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. have been laid down. For the purpose of brevity I quote paragraph 102 which reads as under: 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 11. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the above decisions, on careful perusal of the factual matrix of the case, it is not in dispute that earlier the petitioners-accused and respondent No.2 have entered into a registered partnership deed and they have entered into a registered sale deed and lease deed and thereafter the partnership firm was reconstituted. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners-accused approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.249/2016 and have obtained the injunction order and the injunction was also operating from 25.1.2017 till the application was heard and vacated. It is also not in dispute that the alleged incident has taken place on 8.10.2016. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the partnership firm was in existence, by virtue of the letter dated 24.9.2016, all the rights and liabilities existing in respect of the petitioners-accused have been surrendered and they have taken their shares and vacated and thereafter only with a criminal intention they have trespassed and committed the alleged offence. It is his further contention that subsequently one more offence has been committed and a case has been registered. thereafter investigation has been conducted and the charge sheet has also filed. 12. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the letter dated 24.9.2016. Though it is mentioned in the said letter that in front of Mr.Shaji, Mr.Joice and Mr.Charles Martin, the whole detail was given to them, but to my surprise the said letter has been signed by only two partners, the other partners have not signed the said letter. Be that as it may. The learned counsel for the petitioners-accused has produced the partnership deed and other documents. All those documents are registered documents. When a registered firm was in existence, then if at all any dissolution or understanding has taken place, the rights and liabilities of the parties can be settled and disposed only through a registered deed. If any writing has been done on a plain papers without the signatures of the other partners, then under such circumstances the said document is not having any value in law. I am conscious of the fact that the Court must be very slow in interfering with the investigation at the initial stage. But when the said documents and other materials itself doubts the locus standi of the complainant himself and when a civil disputes are also pending as against the parties, then under such circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the said dispute appears to be purely civil in nature and only with an intention to take revenge a criminal complaint has been filed. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that the petitioners-accused are abusing the process of law, On plain reading of the documents produced by both sides, both are abusing the process of law, they are fighting on the civil side with regard to the said property and their rights are nothing but civil in nature that too when injunction was in operation from 4.10.2016 to 25.1.2017. Then under such circumstances it is a fit case so as to come to the conclusion that the civil dispute is in existence and it is nothing but abuse of process of law and even the documents which have been produced reveal that they are not in accordance with law. Then under such circumstances it is a fit case so as to come to the conclusion that the civil dispute is in existence and it is nothing but abuse of process of law and even the documents which have been produced reveal that they are not in accordance with law. Then under such circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the rights in the firm is going to be concluded by virtue of a civil litigation and one more criminal case has been already registered in Crime No.130/2019 and still the trial has to be concluded. Taking into consideration the above said facts and circumstances the petitioners have made out a case so as to quash the FIR. 13. In that light, the petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.145/2016 of Begur Police Station pending on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Gundlupete, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 448, 427, 381 r/w Section 149 of IPC has been quashed. The observations made in the present petition are not going to affect the other proceedings and litigation pending between the parties. IA No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.