( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4003 OF 2010 Dr. Rubin Moses and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. A.R. Borulkar, advocate for the applicants. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the respondent/State. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 21st October, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Considering the averments made in the FIR, it transpires prima facie that a property which was previously recorded in the name of the United Church of Northern India Trust Association was sought to be transferred by the applicant No. 1 to the third party under an agreement of sale dated 16-03-2009. A newspaper publication dated 13-04-2010, issued by the prospective purchaser, indicated that such transfer was contemplated and, therefore, objections, if any, were called from the public members. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged by the Property Manager of the C.N.I. Organisation and ( 2 ) members of the United Church of Northern India Trust Association. The learned advocate for the applicants would submit that the property was mutated in name of Indian Canadian Press Baterian Mission in accordance with the judgement in a suit No. 26/1904 dated 29-09-1905. What appears from the copy of the Mutation Entries (Exh-C to the application) is that till August, 1998, name of United Church of Northern India Trust Association was recorded as owner of the property in question, and for the first time, on 15-02-2008, the mutation was effected in name of Indian Canadian Press Baterian Mission through the applicant No. 1 on basis of the said judgement dated 29-09-1905. The copy of said judgement is not on record and moreover, the manner of effecting such mutation is also not clear. The prima facie case revealed from the FIR shows that the property which was shown as owned by the United Church of Northern India Trust Association for long many years, int he property register, was attempted to be transferred to a third party. The Investigating Officer may investigate whether the dispute is only of civil nature and the case of the applicants is acceptable by way of defence. Still, however, the defences of the applicants cannot be the ground for quashing of FIR. 3. In "Renukumari vs. Sanjaykumar & others" (2008 AIR ( 3 ) SCW 3771), the Apex Court held that the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is rather restricted to the cases where the abuse of process of law is clear and very much visible on face of the record. The investigation process cannot be scuttled in order to abort the legal proceedings at premature stage. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4003-10