Short Note : Ganga Reddi with the help of his wife and Harihar Shastri, entered into a conspiracy to give Jai Laxmi in marriage to Ramjilal on 17-12-1972. They never wanted that there should be a marriage really between Ramjilal and Smt. Jai Laxmi, but by deceitful means, they wanted to take money and ornaments from Ramjilal. In the said marriage, the complainant spent about Rs. 5,600 on ornaments and clothes. Then he gave one wrist watch to Jai Laxmi. After the said marriage, Jai Laxmi stayed with the complainant as his wife. Then, on 6-5-1973, when the complainant was out of Station. Ganga Reddi, along with his friend Harihar, Shastri, told Jai Laxmi that her mother is seriously ill and, therefore, she should accompany them without waiting for the complainant. All the three persons took away from the house of the complainant the ornaments worth Rs. 5,600 and 400 (four Hundred only) with an intention to commit theft. Complainant then went to Hardwar and enquired about his wife from Ganga Raddi and Harihar Shastri. They showed ignorance regarding her whereabouts. They also thereatened that dire consequences would follow if he divulged this thing to anyone or to Police. They refused to give back the ornaments and the money also. The complainant submitted an application under section 100 Cr.P.C. before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Morena and got a warrant against the accused persons and Jai Laxmi was produced before the Court. She submitted before the Court when she was brought before it that she was never married at all to the complainant. Because of her statement, here as well as, the intention of the accused persons is absolutely clear when they performed the marriage. Their intention was to take away ornaments and money by these deceitful means, and, therefore, they have committed an offence under sections 420, 406, 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Because of her statement, here as well as, the intention of the accused persons is absolutely clear when they performed the marriage. Their intention was to take away ornaments and money by these deceitful means, and, therefore, they have committed an offence under sections 420, 406, 379 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court took statement of Ramjilal Gupta under section 200 Cr.P.C. and seeing the documents, namely, a photograph showing Jai Laxmi along with the complainant and one more photograph showing Jai Laxmi along with the complainant doing some religious rites near a river after their marriage and the invitation card of the marriage showing their marriage programme and other letters, came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie offence made out under section 420 IPC and, therefore, issued a summons against Jai Laxmi and others to attend the Court to answer a charge under section 420 IPC. Against that, the present revision is filed for quashing the proceedings, saying that no offence under section 420 IPC is made out against the applicant. Held : Jai Laxmi, in her statement before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, has clearly said that she is not married wife of Ramjilal. Then the marriage invitation card and the photographs submitted in the file clearly show that there was a marriage and because of this marriage, certain ornaments, clothes and a wrist watch was also given to her. If these two facts are taken together and denial by Jai Laxmi that she is married to Ramjilal is considered then it becomes clear that her father and herself, with an intention to take money and ornaments from the complainant, they made marriage a false pretext for getting the articles. That makes their intention to cheat complainant clear. The clothes and the wrist watch and the ornaments must be said to have been given to her at Morena. At least Rs. 400 which he has alleged, she has taken away must have been given to her at Morena, so also the wrist watch. If this thing has happened at Morena, then certainly the Court has jurisdiction under section 179 Cr.P.C. to try the case. 2. The defence will have to be raised by the applicants in the trial Court. 400 which he has alleged, she has taken away must have been given to her at Morena, so also the wrist watch. If this thing has happened at Morena, then certainly the Court has jurisdiction under section 179 Cr.P.C. to try the case. 2. The defence will have to be raised by the applicants in the trial Court. The court will then consider whether the claim is bona fide or not and then it will decide whether any offence is made out or not. But, at this stage of the case, the defence cannot be considered and, therefore, the submission made by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. 3. Lastly, it was submitted that because this incident gave rise to criminal liability as well as civil liability, the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Only remedy is the civil remedy. I do not agree with this submission made by the learned counsel. When out of an incident, two liabilities arise, namely, criminal as well as civil, both the remedies can be availed of. That is the choice of the party aggrieved. Even choosing one remedy, will not bar the other remedy and, therefore, this submission also has no force in it. AIR 1961 AP 266 , AIR 1962 SC 586 and AIR 1965 SC 585 , referred to. Application dismissed.