THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.P.NO.9164 of 2009 and CRL.P.NO.1064 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Both criminal petitions arise out of the F.I.R. in Cr.No.347 of 2007 on the file of Gandhinagar Police Station, which was registered on a private complaint filed by the second respondent herein. The second respondent herein claims to be a member of a society for social activities and there are said to be some irregularities committed by the accused persons and some properties were missing and the activities of the society have also differed from the purpose for which it was established and when the second respondent questioned the accused persons, he was threatened with dire consequences. Therefore, a private complaint was filed under several sections of penal code and it was forwarded to the police and registered as a case in Cr.No.347 of 2007. While the matter was pending, a petition was filed in Crl.M.P.No.5562 of 2009 in the above crime by the person representing Greater Family Club contending that the police have seized the properties on 21-09-2009 which belongs to the petitioner and they are to be returned. While passing an order for return of the property, the court directed a personal bond of Rs.5 lakhs to be executed and the court also further directed agreed monthly rent of the premises to be deposited on or before 10th of every month before the court which they were paying under the lease agreement dated 01-10-2007 till the dispute is resolved. Questioning the said order, the accused Nos.3 and 4 filed Crl.P.No.9164 of 2009 to quash the orders in Crl.M.P.No.5562 of 2009 and accused Nos.3 to 5 filed Crl.P.No.1064 of 2010 to quash F.I.R.No.347 of 2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations in the complaint are so vague, which do not disclose with any clarity of the particulars of the offence committed and also the particulars of the investigation to be done by the police. According to him, the dispute is essentially a matter of civil in nature; the petitioners are said to be owners of the property under the lease deed and the dispute with regard to enjoyment of the property is subject matter of O.P.No.1909 of 2007, which was filed under Section.23 of the Societies Registration Act and the petitioners are landlords and even if a conviction is to be imposed, the direction of the court with regard to deposit of the rent is not valid and is liable to be set aside. When the petition is filed for return of the property, the direction for deposit of rent is not valid. It is also further pleaded that a dispute, if any, with regard to activities of society can be raised before the civil court only and the civil court had already seized the matter in O.P.No.1909 of 2007 and in case of any mismanagement, misappropriation or deviation of the bye-laws of the society, the civil court can take action and therefore the present investigation into the crime and also passing of the orders about the deposit of the rent is totally bad. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the activities of the accused are questionable and there was a threat to him when he questioned the activities and therefore when prima facie case of misappropriation and irregularities are made out apart from the civil nature of the dispute, it is a matter of criminal investigation and the proceedings need not be quashed. As rightly contended by the counsel for the petitioners herein the complaint is very vague about the ingredients of the offence, for which the accused are to be punished and some of the offences are non-cognizable. It is also to be noted that the affairs of the society are managed by the committee and the committee is answerable to the members. No material is placed before the court that any requisition was given for general body and the offence is said to have taken place in 2007 and the term of the office is only one year and there is no material also as to whether any elections were held or not. Therefore, as matter stands it is a complicated case of civil nature. Except the allegation with regard to threat to the person of the petitioner, which is clear from the allegations in the complaint, the other allegations are vague. However, as the compliant discloses that some activities, which are prohibited, are being taken up in the premises, the investigation can proceed and sofar as the direction of the court below with regard to deposit of rent is concerned, it is beyond the scope of jurisdiction and the court can order only if it pleases for return of the articles seized during the investigation under section 457 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order of the lower court in Crl.M.P.No.5562 of 2009 sofar as it relates to the direction with regard to deposit of rent is set aside as it is beyond the scope of criminal investigation and it is exclusively a civil dispute, which is to be decided. Accordingly Crl.P.No.9164 of 2009 is partly allowed. Sofar as Crl.P.No.1064 of 2010 is concerned, the police can proceed with investigation and at this stage in view of the allegations made by the second respondent, it is not a case for quashing of the proceedings. Therefore, Crl.P.No.1064 of 2010 is dismissed. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 28-07-2011 TSNR