ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, wherein the Court declined to invoke jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in quashing the charge-sheet filed against the appellant(s) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC. The appellant(s) and the respondent(s) were stated to have entered into an unregistered agreement for sale dated 01.7.2008 fixing the time limit of one month, along with which an amount of Rs.50,000/-was paid as advance by the respondent No.2. It is the case of the respondent(s) that a further sum has also been paid which has been disputed by the appellant(s). 3. Thereafter, a sale was effectuated on 06.1.2010 by the appellants in favour of a third party. A legal notice was issued by respondent No.2 on 05.4.2010 in pursuance of which a suit for injunction was filed in the year 2011. It is stated that the prayer in the said suit has been modified to that of specific performance. After nearly two years, a complaint was filed for the offences as alleged above. In pursuance to said complaint, a case has been registered followed by the filing of the charge-sheet. Challenging the said charge-sheet, the appellants approached the High Court. In view of the High Court’s dismissal of the said petition, the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(s) submitted that the entire charge, as framed, would clearly indicate a civil undertone with no criminality attached. The agreement for sale apart from being unregistered, the receipt of the subsequent payment is in dispute. Even otherwise, the definite time period mentioned by the appellants was of one month. Subsequently, a sale was effectuated by the appellants in favour of the third party. After nearly a year and a half, a suit was filed in the year 2011 and as an afterthought an FIR was registered. 5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that there is no bar for proceeding under the civil law if an offence is made out. Though, to attract an offence under Section 415 warranting a punishment under Section 420 IPC, the intention to cheat has to exist from the beginning and it is a matter to be decided at the stage of trial. 6. Though, to attract an offence under Section 415 warranting a punishment under Section 420 IPC, the intention to cheat has to exist from the beginning and it is a matter to be decided at the stage of trial. 6. Learned senior counsel relies upon the judgment of this Court in “S.P.Gupta vs Ashutosh Gupta” reported as (2010) 6 SCC 562 in support of his contention. 7. The facts speak for themselves. Placing reliance upon an un-registered agreement for a sale to be executed in a month’s time indicating the payment of Rs.50,000/-as advance, a complaint was made after five years. In the meanwhile, a suit was also filed originally for injunction, thereafter amended for specific performance. The question as to whether: (i) the agreement is true and valid? (ii) time is the essence of contract, or not? And (iii) Whether part of the consideration has passed and the purchaser is bonafide one or not or all matters for consideration before a Civil Court which the appellant(s) has rightly invoked by filing O.S. No.314/2011, which is still pending consideration on the file of the Civil Judge, Meerut. 8. On the narration of the aforesaid fact, we do not find any criminality involved as the Investigating Officer is not supposed to go into those aspects. In the event that the continuing of the proceeding would lead to miscarriage of justice, the jurisdiction of the Section 482 has to be invoked. 9. The decision relied upon by the learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has no bearing on the facts of the present case. Furthermore, the respondent No.2 has rightly approached the Civil Court. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order by quashing the charge-sheet and all consequent proceedings filed against the appellants. Taking note of the long pendency of the suit, Court of Civil Judge, Meerut is directed to dispose of the same without being influenced by the order of this Court, within a period of one year from today. 10. The criminal appeal stands disposed of.