ORDER : This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this court to quash the FIR in Cr.No.195/2020 on the file of IV Additional CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 409 and 384 of IPC, sections 38, 39, 40, 5 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 has filed the complaint before the respondent No.1 on 20.8.2020 making the allegations against the petitioners that the complainant is the authorized representative of M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Private Limited, a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying out the business of project development and construction. The complainant was authorized to prefer the present complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1 and 3 who are husband and wife are Directors of accused No.5 which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The accused persons claim to be in the business of unofficial financing among other things and are on the look out for soft targets to lend money and in turn usurp their immovable properties by charging illegal interest rates, which can never be repaid. The said accused persons were introduced by one Rajiv Gupta, finance facilitator, befriended personnel of the said company and in August 2019 misled the complainant into taking a business loan in a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-. The said money was received via cheque payments and Rajiv Gupta received commission. The accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves, into accepting, that since they do not have a money lenders licence and would be charging high interest rate at 2% per month till repayment of the principal amount of the loan advanced, they should instead of executing an MOU for the said loan, secure the loan amount by ostensibly transferring sale deeds of 6 flats/properties bearing Nos. 102, 503, 601, 602, 701, 801 in Maple Blocks which form part of the said company’s project at Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the name of accused No.1 during August 2019. 102, 503, 601, 602, 701, 801 in Maple Blocks which form part of the said company’s project at Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the name of accused No.1 during August 2019. The accused insisted that they have to execute sale deeds at circle value instead of market value, as the same was only a formality to secure the loan advanced and therefore despite the cumulative consideration amount for the 6 flats being Rs.1,05,75,000/-, Rs.30,75,000/-was returned. They were further misled into executing bogus rent agreements during the same period, to secure in favour of the accused the 2% per monthly interest amount ostensibly payable as rent initially for 11 months which agreements would extend indefinitely, till the principal amount is not paid. It was agreed that on payment of principal amount, the sale and rent documents executed in August 2019 would be cancelled. It is also the allegation that on 26.2.2020 accused No.3 misled the said company i.e., taking into a business loan in a sum of Rs.2,24,10,080/-. The said money was received via cheque payments from accused No.2’s personal account. Hence, in the complaint the complainant sought to take action against the accused on the ground that they dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves to secure the loan amount. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and investigated the matter and consequent upon the registration of FIR based on the complaint, petitioners are before this court. 3. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in view of the understanding between the parties, respondent No.2 is the developer who developed the project agreed to sell 6 flats in favour of petitioner No.1 and 20 flats in favour of petitioner No.2 and 30 flats in favour of petitioner No.3. In this connection, sale agreement was also executed and subsequently, sale deed was also executed. There is an arbitration clause in the sale deed and sale agreement that if any dispute arises between the parties, the same has to be settled by arbitration. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioners that there is a rental agreement. However, there is no any arbitration clause with regard to any dispute arising between the parties regarding rental. He has approached the appropriate forum for the said relief. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioners that there is a rental agreement. However, there is no any arbitration clause with regard to any dispute arising between the parties regarding rental. He has approached the appropriate forum for the said relief. Counsel would vehemently contend that having taken note of the contents in the complaint, police cannot decide in investigation with regard to the nature of the documents which are in existence between the parties. Counsel also brought to the notice of this court the provision made in the agreement to sell, i.e., clause No.33 in respect of the property which they agreed and also brought to the notice of this court copy of the sale deed and the arbitration clause providing that if any dispute arises, the parties have to settle the same through arbitration. Counsel also would contend that already arbitration proceedings are initiated against respondent No.2. The dispute between the parties is of civil in nature and the same has to be decided in a civil court and not in criminal proceedings. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be leading to miscarriage of justice and it requires interference by this court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to the notice of this court the statement of objections filed by him and also the documents, i.e., Annexures R1 and R2. Annexure-R2 is with regard to the invoice and Annexure-R1 is with regard to the return payment made and also brought to the notice of this court the observations made by the court while granting bail in favour of the petitioners herein. Counsel also brought to the notice of this court the conversations taken place between the parties in terms of Annexure-R3. Counsel referring to these documents would vehemently contend that the dispute between the parties is not civil in nature. The amount was taken and instead of loan, documents sale agreement and sale deeds are obtained since they were not having the licence and, arbitration clause in the documents of sale agreement and sale deed will not take away the right of the respondent in initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The amount was taken and instead of loan, documents sale agreement and sale deeds are obtained since they were not having the licence and, arbitration clause in the documents of sale agreement and sale deed will not take away the right of the respondent in initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Counsel contended that with dishonest intention, the petitioners have cheated respondent No.2 and hence criminal prosecution is maintainable against the petitioners and the petitioners cannot contend that it is a purely a civil dispute and as there is an arbitration clause, they cannot pursue criminal prosecution against the petitioners herein. Counsel in support of his contentions relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry vs Rajesh Agarwal and Others [ (1999) 8 SCC 686 ] and brought to the notice of this court paragraph 9 wherein the Apex Court held that, arbitration is a remedy for affording reliefs to the party affected by breach of the agreement but the arbitrator cannot conduct a trial of any act which amounted to an offence albeit the same act may be connected with the discharge of any function under the agreement. Hence, those are not good reasons for the High Court to axe down the complaint at the threshold itself. The investigating agency should have had the freedom to go into the whole gamut of the allegations and to reach a conclusion of its own. Pre-emption of such investigation would be justified only in very extreme cases as indicated in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335]. 4.1. The learned counsel also relied upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs State of Maharashtra and Others [ (2019) 14 SCC 350 ] and brought to the notice of this court paragraph 6 of the judgment wherein the Apex Court held that defences that may be available, or facts/aspects which when established during the trial, may lead to acquittal, are not grounds for quashing the complaint at the threshold. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not. 4.2. At that stage, the only question relevant is whether the averments in the complaint spell out the ingredients of a criminal offence or not. 4.2. Counsel also brought to the notice of this court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.M.Salim vs Fathima Muhammed and Others [ (2011) 15 SCC 756 ] and relied upon paragraph No.5 wherein it is stated “an allegation had been made that in reality there was no sale and the sale deed was a paper transaction. The court had to record a finding on this point.” 5. Having heard the petitioners counsel and also the counsel appearing for respondent No.2, this court has to examine the material available on record. In the present petition, the relief is sought for quashing of FIR and when the order has been sought for quashing of FIR, the court has to look into the contents of the complaint. On a perusal of the complaint dated 20.8.2020, it can be seen that specific averments are made against the petitioners herein that accused persons dishonestly and fraudulently deceived the complainant with an intention to cause wrongful loss to the company and wrongful gain to themselves. Having perused the complaint averments, specific averments are made with regard to dishonestly inducing the complainant in parting the money. It is also not in dispute as contended by the petitioners counsel that the documents came into existence in connection with the transaction between the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of the court agreement of sale and sale deeds which are executed and contended that it is purely a civil dispute between the parties. Counsel would vehemently contend that nature of these documents cannot be ascertained by the investigating officer. It has to be noted that the Apex Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat and Others [ (2018) 3 SCC 104 ] has summarized the principles in the context of FIR when the same has been challenged before the High Court while exercising the power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in this judgment held that when allegation of committing cognizable offence is made, the High Court should not venture to curtail the rights of the investigating officer and allow the investigating officer to probe the crime and unearth the crime. The only factor to be considered is once the FIR prima facie discloses the allegation of cognizable offence, the investigating officer has to be allowed to probe and unearth the crime as per procedure established. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to the notice of this court the provision with regard to the arbitration clause in the documents and no doubt the petitioners counsel also brought to the notice of the court the clause available in the agreement of sale and also sale deed that if any dispute arises between the parties, the matter has to be settled by arbitration. The court has to look into the averments made in the complaint and whether the complaint averments discloses at the inception of the transaction any inducement or cheating has taken place. If that is the case, the court has to allow the investigating officer to probe into the matter. The Apex Court in the recent judgment delivered on 10.3.2021 in the case of Priti Saraf and Another vs State of NCT of Delhi and Another [2021 SCC Online SC 206] in paragraph 31 held that, in the matter of exercise of inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total abuse of the process of the Court. The Criminal Procedure Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it must use proper circumspection with great care and caution to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In paragraph 32 it is held that, on a careful reading of the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. We would like to add that whether the allegations in the complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court for exercising inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for quashing such proceedings. The Apex Court making the above observations quashed the order of the High Court and restored the complaint. 6. Having considered the principles in the aforesaid judgment and also the judgments referred by the counsel for respondent No.2, this court has to examine whether the material available on record amounts to abuse of process if proceedings is continued. Having taken note of the contents of the complaint, specific allegations are made that at the inception of the transaction there was an intention to cheat and dishonestly entered into the transaction and specific allegations are also made with regard to cheating of the complainant. When the complaint prima facie discloses committing of cognizable offence, the High Court should not venture to restrain the investigating officer and the investigating officer has to probe and unearth the crime as held by the Apex Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (supra). When specific allegations are made in the complaint that at the inception of the transaction there was dishonest intention, the matter has to be probed and at the initial stage the investigating officer cannot be restrained to probe the crime, at this juncture the court has to only look into the complaint averments and hence I do not find any merit to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER a) Petition is rejected. b) However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to move the court, if need arises after filing of the final report.