JUDGMENT V.D. Bhargava, J. - This is an application u/s 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for either the transfer of the case or quashing the proceedings. 2. The facts of the case are that the two applicants are father and son, applicant No. 1 being the father. There is a case pending against them u/s 420 in the court of Sri Chaudhari Ram Harsh Chandra Sahib, Honorary Magistrate 1st Class of Gorakhpur. The opposite party is Suraj Prakash Agarwal and it is alleged in the complaint that he wanted to marry his sister to applicant No. 2. That marriage was settled and in pursuance of the settlement of that marriage a sum of Rs. 1400 cash and a guinea had been given to the applicants. The applicants thereafter refused to celebrate the marriage and broke off the connection but they refused to return the goods which had been given to them. 3. Applicant No. 2 is serving in the office of the Accountant General and this case is pending in the court of Special Magistrate, Gorakhpur A summon was served on Petitioner No. 1 fixing 10-6-1957 as the date for hearing on which date applicant No. 1 apolied for an adjournment. The summons of applicant No. 2 had been sent to the office of the Accountant General but as he was on leave the summons were returned unserved. Thereafter, bailable warrants appear to have been issued which were received in the office of the Accountant General and again they were returned unserved as applicant No. 2 was still on leave. 4. The applicants admit that there had been a talk about the marriage of the sister of the opposite-party with applicant No. 2, but allege that maternal uncle of the opposite-party and the opposite-party misbehaved with applicant No. 2 at Lucknow and there had been hot words and abuses with the result that applicant No. 2 refused to marry in a family where even before the marriage such kinds of things could happen Thereafter, the opposite-party was informed that he does not want to have relations any more. 5. 5. This application has been moved with the allegation that there was no case u/s 420, IPC and, at all events, it would be a civil suit; that a civil suit for the recovery of the money and the articles given to the applicants has already been filed and is pending and these proceedings are not bona fids proceedings but they have been filed for blackmailing and put the applicants to shame and ignominy. Therefore, it is prayed that the proceedings may be quashed. In any event, since the Honorary Magistrate had already issued bailable warrants they are not likely to get justice from him now and, therefore, the case should be transferred from his court. 6. The application has been opposed by means of counter affidavit and it has been asserted that there was no intention to marry and the money had been taken on false representation; that the applicants had also taken money from other people and thereafter broken relations and the marriage was not solemnised on account of bad faith of the applicants. The misbehaviour at the Lucknow station by the opposite-party was denied. It was further denied that these proceedings have been taken in order to blackmail or put the applicants to shame. Other details have also been given in the counter affidavit as to how the negotiations progressed, which for the purposes of the application do not appear to be relevant. 7. So far as the settlement of the marriage is concerned it is admitted by both the parties. The sole question to be determined is whether when that engagement had been made, was there any dishonest intention on the part of the applicants to settle the marriage with the object of extracting the money and not with the real object of having the settlement made. Along with the affidavit Annexure C has been filed, which is a letter dated 6-5 1957 addressed to the opposite-party. That letter is admitted to have been received by the opposite-party in its counter affidavit. A perusal of that letter clearly shows that originally the settlement had been made bona fide but it was on account of the incident which had happened after the settlement that the engagement was broken off. That letter clearly speaks that the maternal-uncle and the opposite-party had spoken harsh words which the applicant No. 2 fell very much. A perusal of that letter clearly shows that originally the settlement had been made bona fide but it was on account of the incident which had happened after the settlement that the engagement was broken off. That letter clearly speaks that the maternal-uncle and the opposite-party had spoken harsh words which the applicant No. 2 fell very much. In that letter of applicant No. 1 it is mentioned that applicant No. 2 had felt it so much that if before marriage such a kind of treatment had been accorded to him, he could not think that his future life with the marriage would be a happy one and, therefore, the idea of this marriage was given up. 8. There are numerous occasions when engagements have been made and later on for some reason or other they were broken but they will not all amount to cases of cheating. The most important ingredient of S. 420 IPC would be as to what was the intention of the applicants, (at the time of settlement ?) of marriage. If at that time there was no bona fide intention at all of performing the marriage then a case u/s 420 would be made out but if at that time they had the honest intention of hiving the maririage with the sister of the opposite party but later on for some reason or other the relation is broken off and the money is not returned it would be a matter of purely civil nature. Their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Prasad Vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724 have said. The High Court observed rightly that if the Appellant had at the time he promised to pay cash against delivery an intention to do so, the fact that he did not pay would not convert the transaction into one of cheating. But if on the other hand he had no intention whatsoever to pay but merely said that he would do so in order to induce the complainant to part with the goods then a caes of cheating would be established." The above decision was followed by me in the case of Hira Lal Chaudhary and Others Vs. State, AIR 1956 All 619 . 9. Ext. State, AIR 1956 All 619 . 9. Ext. C, the receipt of which has been admitted clearly shows that the applicants were prepared to return all the articles that they had received from the opposite party as they were breaking the relation. This voluntary offer shows that they had no mala fide intention at all when they had entered into the negotiation. Under the circumstances, I think it is a case of purely civil nature and criminal proceedings do not appear to have been launched bona fide and I think the proceedings should be quashed. 10. I had the occasion to refer to some of the decisions of different courts whether it was expedient in such case to allow criminal proceedings or not. In the case of Hira Lal Chaudhary and Others Vs. State, AIR 1956 All 619 cited above, I had placed reliance on the cases of Thakorlal Vadilal v. Ambalal Bhikabhai Patel AIR 1942 Bom. 330 and M. M. S. T. Chidambaram Chattiar v. Shanmugham Pillai AIR 1938 Mad. 129. 11. There was a very similar case where civil and criminal proceedings were simultaneously going on and the proceedings in that case were also quashed and that case is Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Bhagwan Das, AIR 1926 All 30 . A learned single Judge of this Court observed: Had I not come to the conclusion that these proceedings should be quashed, I would have had no heistation in saying that these proceedings ought to be stayed pending the disposal of civil case. Obviously it would be highly undesirable that the same dispute should be allowed to be fought out in two Courts, namely, criminal and civil Courts simultaneously. 12. In the circumstances. I think it is a fit case in which the proceedings should be quashed and I accordingly hereby quash the proceedings.