AJAY BHANOT,J. - (1.) The application under Section 482 has been instituted with the following prayer:- "Quash entire proceedings along with complaint of Criminal Case No. 1635 (7635) of 2004, Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs Ashish Pandey and others (initiated on the application i.e. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., dated 20.12.2002 which has been treated by order dated 24.03.2004 as (Criminal Complaint), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Varanasi under the sections 392, 504, 506, I.P.C. Police Station Jaitpura, District Varanasi as well as the order dated 13.07.2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 1, Varanasi (Annexure-19)."
(2.) Sri C. K. Parekh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri M.A. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicants, assailing the impugned orders and the proceedings before the court below, contends that the court at Varanasi does not possess the jurisdiction to try the offences even if the allegations in the complaint are taken on their face value (though the said allegations are denied as false). Learned counsel further contends that the dispute is essentially of civil profile. The criminal proceedings have been instituted to defeat the creditors. The proceedings are actuated by malafide. He further contends that even if evidences in the record are taken on their face value, no offence is disclosed against the applicants. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants lastly submits, that the complaint is an abuse of process of court. The respondent no. 3 concealed material facts and documents before the learned trial court. The conduct of the complainant/respondent no. 3 deserves to be severely censured and held accountable to law. The complainant/respondent no. 3 has mislead the court by concealing material facts.
(3.) Per contra, Sri A. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that part of the offence was committed in District Varanasi and the trial court at Varanasi has the territorial jurisdiction to try the offence. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 thereafter contends that on a perusal of the material in the record a prima facie offence is made out against the applicants.;