ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to quash the complaint dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure-A) and FIR dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure-A1) in Crime No.122/2019 on the file of the VII Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 378 and 380 of IPC and grant such other relief as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant/respondent No.2 has filed a complaint on 12.12.2019 making the allegation in the complaint that he was working in the petitioners’ institution from 2009 to 2015 and he was having the documents pertaining to the Tourism Department. From the beginning of 2015, differences were arisen between him and the petitioners institution. Hence, he gave resignation on 05.01.2015. The respondent No.2 was requested to continue till the completion of the academic year and he agreed for the same and in the month of May he gave the resignation and the Management did not accept the same. That on 19.05.2015 and 20.05.2015, he was on leave to receive the Doctorate in Literature for his book “Karnataka A Delight For Tourist” which he had written and Belagavi Rani Chennamma University gave the Doctorate and while going to receive the said Doctorate, he locked his room. In his absence that on 20.05.2015, these petitioners removed the lock and entered the room and stole the documents, letter heads, receipts, bills and vouchers without his consent. The petitioners institution with malafide intention and on personal vengeance removed the documents and now they made an allegation against the complainant that he has misappropriated the amount. 3. It is also alleged in the complaint that though other staff witnessed the said incident, they are not coming forward to give statement. The police investigated the matter against the case registered against him and filed the charge-sheet. During the course of investigation in the case registered against respondent No.2/complainant, it is categorically admitted that they have removed the documents and also not drawn any mahazar and prima facie it discloses that they have committed the offence. Hence, requested to take action against the petitioners. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 378 and 380 of IPC. Hence, requested to take action against the petitioners. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 378 and 380 of IPC. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing this petition for seeking order of quashing. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in his arguments referring the brief synopsis which he has prepared, contended that respondent No.2 was appointed in 2005 and the institution introduced Tourism Department and respondent No.2 was made as Head of the said Department including collection of fees, admissions etc. A number of complaints were lodged in the year 2014 by the students/parents to the society against respondent No.2 about his misappropriation, misdeeds about admissions, etc. and ultimately an internal auditor was appointed. Respondent No.2 gave resignation on 05.01.2015 admitting guilt that he could not maintain proper accounts of the Department, but went on litigating against the management/petitioners. The respondent No.2 filed defamation case against the petitioners and the society also lodged complaint against him on 01.11.2015 and in the local newspaper ‘Star of Mysore’, the same was appeared and hence respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 500 of IPC and the same was quashed by this Court. It is also the contention of the petitioners that civil suit in O.S.No.17/2016 filed by the petitioners against respondent No.2 is pending, claiming misappropriated amount of Rs.3 Crores and odd. The respondent No.2 also filed written statement in the suit, but not stated anything about the present offence of theft and civil suit for recovery is pending. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that Crime No.65/2015 has been investigated and the police have filed the charge-sheet. Now respondent No.2 has lodged a theft case in 2019 though the alleged incident was taken place according to the complainant in the year 2015 and there is a delay in lodging the complaint. This complaint is nothing but off shoot of the civil suit and criminal case registered against him. Now respondent No.2 has lodged a theft case in 2019 though the alleged incident was taken place according to the complainant in the year 2015 and there is a delay in lodging the complaint. This complaint is nothing but off shoot of the civil suit and criminal case registered against him. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel would vehemently contend that in the written statement filed by respondent No.2, he has not stated even one word about this offence of theft of documents and so also defamation case was also quashed and nothing is whispered about the present offence of theft of 2015. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is clear that he was not in station at the time of alleged offence and only he is relying upon hearsay complaint and also stated that he had thought of not lodging the complaint as he was aged about 68 years and only with dishonest intention, the present complaint is filed. The FIR is lodged by the police mechanically without application of mind and there was a delay in lodging the complaint. It is also contended that in the earlier proceedings either filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioners or filed by the petitioners against respondent No.2, has not said even one word about the said alleged theft. As per Bye-law No.13.6 of the Mahajana Education Society, the Secretary shall be the custodian of all records such as cheque books, pass books, receipt books, day books, cash register and other relevant and confidential documents. Therefore, respondent No.2 being an employee of the institution cannot lodge a complaint by saying that the documents are stolen from his legal custody. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS v. CH. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 (1) and brought to the notice of this Court Sections 154(1) and 157(1) of Cr.P.C. He also brought to the notice of this Court seven guidelines for entertaining the petition in High Court exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Particularly he relied upon the first, fifth and seventh guidelines of the said judgment. 7. 7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of DALIP KAUR AND OTHERS v. JAGNAR SINGH AND ANOTHER reported in (2009) 14 SCC 696 , wherein it is held that where allegations contained in FIR, even if given face value and taken to be correct, do not disclose commission of the alleged offence and disclose only a civil dispute, FIR is liable to be quashed. 8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1091 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.25 of the judgment. It is also held with regard to exercising of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. regarding large delay in lodging the complaint and malafide proceedings launched to wreak vengeance, proceedings has to be quashed. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of MRS. INDIRA POOVAIAH AND ANOTHER v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2018 (2) Kar.L.R. 864 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.11. In the said judgment, it is discussed with regard to scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Inherent powers of the High Court for quashing of complaint. Frustrated litigant who has failed in civil Court attempts to invoke criminal jurisdiction with malafide intention or with a motive of wreaking vengeance on the present accused -Civil litigations pending or disposed of – amounts to abuse of process of Court. 10. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of V. NAGABHUSHAN AND OTHERS v. M/S. N.K. CONSTRUCTIONS, BENGALURU AND ANOTHER reported in 2019 (1) KCCR 543 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.3, 4 and 9. It is also observed that when the civil suits are pending between the rival parties, proceedings has to be quashed. 11. It is also observed that when the civil suits are pending between the rival parties, proceedings has to be quashed. 11. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SARDAR ALI KHAN v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 626 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.9, wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to the pendency of the civil suit and complaint filed alleging forgery and impersonation regarding validity of sale deed and when the same is pending before the civil suit for cancellation of sale deed having regard to serious factual disputes which are of civil nature, continuation of criminal proceedings during pendency of civil suit is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 12. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AHMAD ALI QURAISHI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 788 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.20 to 24. The Apex Court also discussed with regard to where civil disputes are pending regarding property between the parties and criminal proceedings maliciously instituted with ulterior motives – permitting which would be abuse of process of Court and held that proceedings are liable to be quashed. 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that subsequent to stealing of the original documents breaking open the lock of the room in which it was kept and in the custody of respondent No.2, from the day one the complainant is agitating the same and in the complaint, specific reasons are stated for delay in lodging the complaint. It is also contended that the theft of documents were taken place within the vicinity of the petitioners institution and no official came forward to help respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 reiterated the same subsequent to the incident and the very contention that the same has not to been attributed in any subsequent proceedings cannot be accepted. It is also contended that the theft of documents were taken place within the vicinity of the petitioners institution and no official came forward to help respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 reiterated the same subsequent to the incident and the very contention that the same has not to been attributed in any subsequent proceedings cannot be accepted. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that the same has to be emerged during the course of investigation in connection with the case registered against respondent No.2 by the institution and in each and every stage he has pointed out the theft of the documents which were in his custody and now the final report is filed and case has been registered against him for misappropriation and civil suit is also filed claiming the amount of Rs.3 Crores and odd against respondent No.2 herein. 14. The learned counsel in support of his arguments brought to the notice of this Court the statement of objections filed by him and in detail controverted the allegations made in the petition. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that in the bail application dated 06.11.2015 he has stated in paragraph No.14 that on 20.05.2015, the President and the Secretary went to the Department premises situated at Metagalli and took custody of all the papers, documents, record books and sealed the chamber of the petitioner. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the complaint dated 28.12.2016 was given to the Commissioner of Police, Mysore City, Mysore, wherein categorical allegations are made that with the sole intention to frame respondent No.2 in the said case, Mr. Bhagawat’s wife and father-in-law broke upon the chamber on 20.05.2015 when he was on leave and took away all the receipts, vouchers, record books etc. kept in his office. Now they have charged him for not maintaining the records of the expenses. 15. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court when he was summoned and enquired in connection with Crime No.65/2015, he reiterated the same in his statement before the police on 25.01.2017. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that he gave the explanation to the Investigating Officer, City Crime Branch, reiterating the same and also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R9 wherein he gave response to the Inspector of Police. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that he gave the explanation to the Investigating Officer, City Crime Branch, reiterating the same and also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R9 wherein he gave response to the Inspector of Police. He has reiterated that when he was on leave on 19.5.2015 and 20.05.2015, the petitioners have barged into his room and removed the vouchers, bills and other documents. 16. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court Annexure-R10 which was given to the City Crime Branch. In the reply dated 21.05.2018, the incident has been culled out and explained the same. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the questionnaire to the Secretary of the petitioners institution which was recorded in connection with Crime No.65/2015, wherein the Secretary categorically admitted that the Management has taken possession of all the records and documents and also categorically admitted that there was no concurrence of respondent No.2 in taking the documents. In the enquiry also categorically stated that they have not conducted any mahazar for having taken the documents and in the questionnaire, categorically admitted that some records were taken for verification. Hence, it is clear that they have barged into the room of respondent No.2 and took away all the relevant documents and subsequently registered the criminal case and also filed the civil suit for recovery of amount of Rs.3 Crores and odd. 17. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PYARE LAL BHARGAVA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1963 SC 1094 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.8 of the judgment, wherein it is observed that the facts found were that the appellant got the file between December 15 and 16, 1948, to his house, made it available to Ram Kumar Ram and on December 16, 1948 returned it to the office. On these facts it is contended that the prosecution has not made out that the appellant dishonestly took any movable property within the meaning of Section 378 of the IPC. On these facts it is contended that the prosecution has not made out that the appellant dishonestly took any movable property within the meaning of Section 378 of the IPC. The Apex Court also discussed with regard to A, a superintendent in Government office taking a certain file from office to his house and making the same available to B and then returning the same after replacing certain papers by other papers, to office. A held was not in legal possession of the file. To commit theft one need not take movable property permanently out of the possession of another with the intention not to return it to him. A unlawfully stole the file from the department, and for a short time he deprived the Head of the Department of the possession of the said file. A temporary period of deprivation or dispossession of the property of another causes loss to the other person. A person acts dishonestly if he temporarily dispossesses another of his property. A’s case therefore fell within four corners of Section 378 of IPC. 18. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRITI SARAF AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER reported in 2021 SCC online SC 206, wherein the Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court in quashing the criminal proceedings and restored the complaint making an observation that the High Court has failed to consider the charge-sheet and other materials available on record and the very observation of the High Court that it was a simple case of termination because of breach of terms of contract giving rise to a purely civil dispute or initiation of the arbitral proceedings would not attract the provisions under Sections 406, 420, 34 of IPC may not hold good at this stage for the reason what is being suggested by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 can be his defence during the course of trial but was not open to be examined by the High Court to take a judicial notice and for quashing of the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 19. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also considering the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, this Court has to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. On perusal of the complaint, an allegation is made that in the absence of the complainant, the petitioners herein have broke open the lock and barged into the room, which was provided to the complainant by the institution of the petitioners and stole the documents, letter heads, receipts, bills and vouchers without his consent. No doubt, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. The incident was taken place according to the complainant on 20.05.2015 and the complaint is lodged in 2019. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that there is no any averment in the written statement that in the civil suit filed against respondent No.2 with regard to this incident and nowhere stated with regard to the incident is concerned. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to the notice of this Court in detail, which has been referred supra that respondent No.2 brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer, who has investigated the matter that the case is registered against respondent No.2 herein. The Court also cannot expect the same in the written statement with regard to civil suit filed against him. It is the specific case of respondent No.2 that by removing the documents, vouchers etc., the petitioners filed the criminal case and also civil suit for recovery of more than Rs.3 Crores. 20. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that when investigation was conducted by the police in respect of the case registered against respondent No.2 herein, the Secretary of the Institution categorically admitted in terms of Annexure-R11 when a question was put has the Management taken possession of all the records and documents of the MTDI, the answer was given that some records which was available for verification was taken in possession and no concurrence was given by respondent No.2. It is further admitted that the official mahazar was not conducted and some records were taken for verification, Hence, it is clear that the incident was taken place and specific allegation that the documents were stolen, prima facie discloses in Annexure-R11. The specific allegations were made in the complaint that the petitioners barged into the room in which the complainant had kept the documents which were in his custody and stole the documents. 21. Having taken note of the complaint averments and also the relevant materials available before the Court as pointed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also the records discloses that even after the registration of the case against respondent No.2 in the bail application and also in reply to the Investigating Officer specifically contended with regard to incident is concerned. It is also the case of the complainant that the documents which were in his custody were removed and thereafter cases are instituted against him, both criminal case as well as civil case. Under the circumstances, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioners cannot be accepted and the materials found before the Court prima facie discloses with regard to the incident was taken place, that too in the absence of respondent No.2. The very contention of the petitioners that the complainant came to know about the incident through other officials and the same is a hearsay complaint, cannot be decided at this juncture and the Investigating Officer has to probe the matter and unearth the crime. The High Court should not venture to prevent the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation. May be there is a delay in lodging the complaint, but the fact is that the documents which were in custody of respondent No.2 were taken away. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Pyare Lal Bhargave (supra) has held that even if the documents are removed for temporary purpose, it amounts to invoking the ingredients of Section 378 of IPC. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the FIR. It requires further investigation. 22. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is rejected.