IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20111 DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.8170/2010 BETWEEN: B.Durgappa, Sb. Hulagappa, Age: 52 years, 0cc: Service, Rio. Ukkadakeri, Ward No.35, Hospet, Dist: Bellary. . . . Petitioner (By Shri V.P. Kulkarni, Advocate) AND: 1. Smt. P.Girijadevi, W/o. Late P.S.Mahabaleshwar Shetty, Age: 54 years, 0cc: Housewife, R/o. 20 th Ward, Main Bazar, Hospet, Dist: Bellary. 2. State of Karnataka, By its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Dharwad. . . .Respondents This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings pending before the J.M.F,C., Hospet in P.C.No.45/20 10. This petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner and the respondent- 1 herein are said to have entered into an agreement of sale in the year 2005, whereby the respondent had agreed to sell certain property for a sum of Rs. 11,35,042/-. Thereafter, the respondent failed to perform the contract and ultimately, the petitioner was driven to file a civil suit in the year 2008, for specific performance of the contract. Immediately after the suit was filed and the matter was ripe for trial, the respondent No.1 is said to have initiated criminal proceedings alleging, that the so-called alleged agreement to sell was in fact not executed by respondent-i and that it was a forged document and therefore, registered a case in 3 p P.C.No.4512010 against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 191, 193, 198, 120B, 406, 420, 464, 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, after having recorded the sworn statement of the complainant, has referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is at that stage, the present petition is filed praying to quash all further proceedings in the above background, that the dispute is purely of a civil nature and a civil dispute is pending in 0.S.45/2008 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Hospet, as already stated. 3. It is the above circumstance, which the learned Counsel for the petitioner would reiterate and would submit, that it is out of sheer spite and to circumvent the civil proceedings, that the criminal proceedings have been initiated and the belated claim that the document which is the subject matter of the suit is a forged document, is not a tenable claim and in view of the civil proceedings pending in respect of the 4 very same offences, the criminal proceedings will not lie and would have to be quashed. 4. While there may be some substance in the contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is really a matter for the Court of the learned Magistrate to address this at the appropriate stage. If no case is made out against the petitioner and if the case were to be tried as a warrant case by the Magistrate, there is a remedy provided for the petitioner to seek discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the appropriate time before the learned Magistrate. In that view of the matter, there is no warrant for this Court to address the case and the contentions of the petitioner in the above circumstances, and to exercise any power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the pending proceedings. The petitioner is, therefore, left to his remedies before the Court of the learned Magistrate and the dismissal of this petition is without prejudice to the merits of any such contention that may he taken by the petitioner and the respondent at the appropriate time. 5. With this observation, the petition is disposed of, Sd! 3UDGE Sub!