ORDER A.H. Khan, J. The facts leading to this revision are that the accused Parmanand is alleged to have assured the complainant Dangal Singh that the land in dispute solely belonged to him and that he alone was entitled to sell it. On the basis of this assurance, the land was bought by the complainant for Rs. 2,000. The possession of the and was also given to the complainant. But it turned out that there were two other persons who had interest in the land and the accused was not its sole owner. The other two persons (partners) succeeded in evicting the complainant from the land. On these allegations, the Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 420, Indian Penal Code against the accused before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhilsa, which was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure code code on the ground that the liability of the accused was of a civil nature and a criminal complaint would not therefore lie in this case. The complainant filed a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilsa, which was also dismissed on the ground that because of the indemnity clause in the sale-deed, the accused cannot be said to have cheated the complainant. He also held that the matter belonged to the province of civil law and that criminal proceedings were thus misconceived. I am afraid both the Courts below have not made a correct approach in this case. They have failed to realise that sometimes criminal and civil liabilities can co-exist, and, that an act can both be a civil wrong as well as a crime. A civil wrong is an injury or breach of duty to an individual for which he is entitled to get reparation from the wrong doer, while a crime is regarded as a breach of duty to public at large, for which the offender is punished by the society or the State. In this view of the matter, an injury can both be a civil wrong and a crime, when it is a breach of both these duties. Notable instances of an act, which is both a civil wrong and a crime are assault, libel and fraud. The object of a civil action is private reparation and satisfaction, but the object of a criminal prosecution is punishment with a view to promote public interests by prevention of offences. Notable instances of an act, which is both a civil wrong and a crime are assault, libel and fraud. The object of a civil action is private reparation and satisfaction, but the object of a criminal prosecution is punishment with a view to promote public interests by prevention of offences. Sometimes an injury may be a crime and not a civil wrong such as public nuisance, consisting in the obstruction of a highway, where no civil suit lies unless the Plaintiff has sustained special damage. Conversely, an injury may only be a civil wrong and not a crime when it lacks the element of mens rea e.g. innocent or mistaken trespass on land. Apart from this an act can also be the basis of criminal as well as civil proceedings. For instance, if a person is defamed, he can institute criminal proceedings under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code and he can also sue for damages in a civil Court. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case, if a person has dishonestly induced another to believe that he is the sole owner of a certain land while in fact he is not, and deceived the person into purchasing the land, I fail to see why the act does not amount to cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. Illustration (i) of Section 415, Indian Penal Code is clear enough on the point. If the facts alleged by the complainant are found to be true by the Court, then there is not the least doubt that the offence of cheating has been committed. It is true that on the basis of the indemnity clause incorporated in the sale-deed, the Plaintiff can also maintain a civil suit, but that fact does not preclude him from launching a criminal case. For reasons stated above the order of Additional District Magistrate, Bhilsa, is set aside and the case is sent back to him for recording the evidence of the parties and passing a proper order in the case.