JUDGMENT S.N. Jha, J. 1. All these applications have been heard together as common questions of law arising out of same facts are involved in theses applications and they are being disposed of by this common judgment with the consent of the parties. 2. The petitioners, who deal in pumping sets and boring materials, have filed these applications for quashing the order of cognizance dated 9.11.1983 except Cr. Misc. No., 4346 of 1984 in which the impugned order taking cognizance is dated 5.3.1984, whereby the learned Special Judge has taken cognizance against them for an offence under Sections 120B, 420, 418, 477 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Penal Code') and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘P.C. Act'). 3. In Cr. Misc. No. 6048 of 1984 the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Kundan Machinery Stores, Gogari Jamalpur in the district of Khagaria. In Cr. Misc. No. 4346 of 1984 the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Dinesh Machinery Stores, Jamalpur Gogari in the district of Khagaria. In Cr. Misc. No.2212 of 1984 the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Usha Diesel Centre, Jamalpur Gogari in the district of Khagaria. In Cr. Misc. No. 10298 of 1984, the two petitioners are the partners of M/s Kiran Machinery Stores, Khagaria. In Cr. Misc. No. 11677 of 1984, the two petitioners are partners of M/s Laxmi Machinery Stores, Gogari Jamalpur, in the district of Khagaria. In Cr. Misc. No.7602 of 1984 the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Balaji Machinery Stores, Khagaria. They all deal in pumping sets and boring materials and hereinafter referred to as "the dealers” for the sake of brevity. 4. No. 11677 of 1984, the two petitioners are partners of M/s Laxmi Machinery Stores, Gogari Jamalpur, in the district of Khagaria. In Cr. Misc. No.7602 of 1984 the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Balaji Machinery Stores, Khagaria. They all deal in pumping sets and boring materials and hereinafter referred to as "the dealers” for the sake of brevity. 4. The facts which led to the filing of these Applications, in short, are that a complaint was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, (hereinafter referred to as "the C.B.I.”) on an information received from reliable sources that one S.K Jha; while functioning as Branch Manager of Maheshkhut Branch of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.B.I.') in between the period January, 1981 to June, 1981 in conspiracy with B.N. Tripathi, Branch Head Cashier, and Mahendra Thakur, Messenger, of the said Branch of the S.B.I. and different dealers, mentioned above, misused his official position inasmuch as he fraudulently and dishonestly floated agricultural loan unauthorisedly to the tune of Rs. 1,12,85,173/- thereby causing huge lose to the S.B.I., a Government of India Undertaking with a view to get undue benefit to himself and others including the dealers. 5. For convenience sake, I am taking the facts as enumerated in the complaint petition filed in Cr. Misc. No. 10298 of 1984, which is Annexure-1 appended to the said application. It is stated in the said complaint petition that the said Branch Manager of the said Branch of the S.B.I. during the aforesaid period in conspiracy with the said B.N. Tripathi, Branch Head Cashier and Mahendra Thakur, Messenger, of the said Bank and with M/s Kiran Machinery Stores of Gogari Jamalpur, a private dealer of pumping set and boring materials and others, misused his official position inasmuch as he fraudulently and dishonestly floated agricultural loan to the tune of Rs. 38,82,348/- beyond his competence and in violation of the instructions/norms laid down by the said Bank in the names of 532 borrowers including several fake and fictitious persons, towards 524 pump sets, 531 boring and 5 Threshers and thereby caused huge loss to the S.B. I., a Govt. of India Undertaking. 6. 38,82,348/- beyond his competence and in violation of the instructions/norms laid down by the said Bank in the names of 532 borrowers including several fake and fictitious persons, towards 524 pump sets, 531 boring and 5 Threshers and thereby caused huge loss to the S.B. I., a Govt. of India Undertaking. 6. It was alleged that number of glaring illegalities were committed in sanction and disbursement of agricultural loan, namely: (i) Although Maheshkhut Branch was, a non-intensive Branch and no village had been adopted for agricultural financing the Branch Manager sanctioned and disbursed the agricultural loans unauthorisedly to the tune of Rs.1,12,85,173/- within a period of about 6 months in hot hurry. (ii) Discretionary power vested in Branch Manager for agricultural term loan which was Rs.5,000/- individually was exceeded in all cases. (iii) The loan applications were either not obtained or they-were blank signed. (iv) No pre-sanction survey/appraisal was done; (v) Letters regarding terms and conditions were not available. (vi) Non-incumberance certificates were not obtained in many cases. (vii) Legal opinion was not obtained in majority of the cases. (viii) Mortgage deed was not available on record in any case. (ix) Debit authority from the borrowers was not obtained in majority of the cases. (x) Delivery challan was not available in many cases. (xi) ATL. Sheets/Control cards were not available on record in majority of the cases and in some cases they were incomplete. Photographs of the borrowers were not found on control cards in large number of cases. Signature of the borrowers were not verified by the authorised bank officials on a number or control cards No inspection cards was available on record. (xii) Payments were made to the dealers on basis of the list of reasons submitted by them without submission of loan applications, appraisal thereof and execution of necessary security documents. Some lists of persons enclosed to ATL vouches were found to have been interpolated in material particulars. (xiii) The Branch Manager did not inspect a single pumpset, boring, threshers for which payments were made to the dealers. (xiv) The Branch Manager deliberately kept the controlling authorities in dark about the agricultural financing which be made unauthorisedly against the pecuniary interest of the bank. (xiii) The Branch Manager did not inspect a single pumpset, boring, threshers for which payments were made to the dealers. (xiv) The Branch Manager deliberately kept the controlling authorities in dark about the agricultural financing which be made unauthorisedly against the pecuniary interest of the bank. (xv) The dealer was paid Rs.5,000/- for each boring when in areas located in Diara, the depth of the boring varies from 110 to 130 the cost of which should not exceed Rs.4,000/- for each iron boring and Rs.1,500/- for each bamboo boring. In many cases borings were not at an sunk. (xvi) Loans were sanctioned in many cases in names of persons either non-existent, dead years ago and even minors. (xx) Same persons were advanced loan twice through two different dealers on the same land. 7. It was further alleged that the major portion of loan money shown advanced was criminally misappropriated and shared by the accused Bank officials, namely, the said Branch Manager, S.N. Jha, the Branch Head Cashier B.N. Tripathi and the Messenger Mahendra Thakur alongwith the aforesaid dealers in different proportions. According to the prosecution case, most of the loanees even did not deserve the agricultural loan sanctioned to them and the loan money has become sticky and there is little chance of their recovery. 8. The allegations mentioned above in the said case are same against other dealers who are accused in other cases at hand with slight variations in the amount fraudulently and dishonestly floated against the agricultural loan. 9. The C.B.I. registered several cases against the aforesaid S.N. Jha Branch Manager, S.B.I., Maheshkhunt Branch, B. N. Tripathi, Branch Head Cashier and private dealers for the aforesaid offences for defrauding the bank to the tune of Rs. 1,12,85,173/- and after investigation submitted charge sheet separately in all the cases against the said S.N. Jha, B.N. Tripathi and the dealers. 10. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the charge sheet submitted against the dealers; took cognizance by the impugned orders which have been challenged in these applications. 11. Mr. Tara Kant Jha learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the dealers in Cr. Misc. No. 10298 of 1984, has submitted that no case has been made out against the dealers for the aforesaid offences, as no criminal liability has been fastened against them. 11. Mr. Tara Kant Jha learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the dealers in Cr. Misc. No. 10298 of 1984, has submitted that no case has been made out against the dealers for the aforesaid offences, as no criminal liability has been fastened against them. According to him it was not the concern of the dealers to decide to whom pumping set should be supplied. It was only after due verification made by the State authorities and the Bank Officials, it was decided by them to whom the supply should have been made or not. The dealer has nothing to do with the borrower except to supply the pumping set on the direction of the bank officials naming the persons to whom it has to be supplied in presence of the State officials. It was also contended on behalf of the dealers that as dealers, they have to obey the directions of the Bank and whether the borrower is fictitious or genuine. It was never their concern. Besides these submissions, it was also contended that even if there is any liability, it was purely a civil liability and a suit has also been filed by the S.B.I. Maheshkhut Branch through its Manager against the dealers and the concerned employees of the Bank alongwith the borrowers and farmers for the realisation of the amount. Therefore, criminal proceeding for the same cause of action against the dealers should not proceed and continuance of such proceeding is an abuse of the process of the court and fit to be quashed. A copy of the plaint has also been filed as Annexure-1 appended to the petitioner's reply to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party. 12. This argument of Mr. Jha has been adopted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the dealers in other cases. 13. Counter affidavits have been filed On behalf of the C.B.I. as well as the S.B.I. 14. Before I deal with the submissions of the learned counsel. 12. This argument of Mr. Jha has been adopted by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the dealers in other cases. 13. Counter affidavits have been filed On behalf of the C.B.I. as well as the S.B.I. 14. Before I deal with the submissions of the learned counsel. I may point out here that when these irregularities were detected by the S.B.I., the General Manager of the S.B.I. issued two circulars placing blanket ban and stopping finance against some of the manufacturers of Diesel Pump Sets used by their selling agents for supplying pumping sets to the farmers under the scheme known as "Agricultural Term Loan" The manufacturers challenged those circulars in writ applications and prayed for its quashing and also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Bank to finance the products of those manufacturers/petitioners like those of other manufacturers. Four writ applications were filed and all those writ applications were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court in a decision in the case of M/s Shriram Refrigeration Industries Ltd. & ors v. State Bank of India and anr reported in 1983 BBCJ page 634.: 1983 PLJR 501 . In those cases the stand of the petitioners (manufacturers) was that the conspiracy was between the bank employees itself and the dealers. Therefore, there was no reason for singling out for step motherly treatment of the goods themselves. According to the manufacturers the producer did never come in the contact with the S.B.I. or its officers or the dealers and no defect or infirmity has been detected in the goods produced by them. The manufacturers also admitted that their dealers had played fast and loose with the Bank and they were never a party to the fraud committed by their dealers. In those cases the Court observed that the dealers cannot be equated per se with the manufacturers and after considering all the facts and circumstances allowed the applications and quashed the impugned circulars. The Court also observed that the S.B.I. would be free not to finance the selling of such pumps through dealers, who deal in such diesel pumps. 15. It appears that the State Government in collaboration with the banks in public interest started a scheme whereby the Banks were to finance sale of diesel, motor pumps to farmers. The Court also observed that the S.B.I. would be free not to finance the selling of such pumps through dealers, who deal in such diesel pumps. 15. It appears that the State Government in collaboration with the banks in public interest started a scheme whereby the Banks were to finance sale of diesel, motor pumps to farmers. Under the scheme the Bank was to finance 75% of the price of the motor pumps as loan and the farmers only 25%. After processing of application for loans and scrutinising thereof was gone through, the Bank would agree to advance loans to farmers. The Bank, however, did not pay any money in cash to the farmers/borrowers, but only to the authorised dealers of Engine Sets of the choice of the farmers to deliver and install the engine sets at the places required by the farmers. The dealers were to be paid by the Bank and the loan was to be repaid by the farmers in easy instalments to the Bank. This policy and method was called "Agricultural Term Loan". The Scheme was undoubtedly very laudable and the object of it was to help the farmers but it appears from the complaint that the officers of the S.B.I. and the dealers entered into a conspiracy by which payments for purchase and supply of diesel engine sets were made without their having been installed. From the perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that volume of such fake payments and receipts were so much that the amounts swelled worth Rs.1,12,85,173/- within a period of about six months. 16. Now the question for consideration before this Court is as to whether the dealers can be prima facie held liable for the offences on the allegations made in the complaint filed by the C.B.I. 17. According to the case of the dealers they have been falsely implicated in these cases and they have not taken any loan from the Bank. The Bank has given loan to the farmers/borrowers. The dealers are only suppliers of the pumping sets, boring materials and the same was supplied at the instance of the bank officials. It was further contended that the bills were submitted by the dealers along with the delivery challan signed by the loanee, which also show that the goods were delivered to the persons and thereafter the bills were submitted. It was further contended that the bills were submitted by the dealers along with the delivery challan signed by the loanee, which also show that the goods were delivered to the persons and thereafter the bills were submitted. According to them the Bank itself used to make delivery of the pumping sets in the presence of the authorised staff of the Bank and the farmers/borrowers acknowledge the receipt and thereafter the dealers used to submit the bills along with the delivery challan, disclosing the fact that the farmers have received the materials from the dealers. It was further stated that the mode of payment was after completion of all the formalities for the loan 75% of the cost of the pumping sets, boring etc. and 25% of the cost in the case of subsidy was to be paid to the dealers and rest cost was to be realised after carrying out inspection by the Bank staff after assuring that the instruments have been properly installed and were working properly. It was vehemently argued that from plain reading of the first information report it is manifest that no offence has been committed by the dealers. 18. Two counter affidavits have been filed, one on behalf of the C.B.I. and the other on behalf of the S.B.I. 19. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the C.B.I. that the said Branch Manager was required to observe, the rules/circulars for sanctioning the loan to the borrowers/loanees, but as he was in deep rooted conspiracy with the dealers and the cashier, did not observe the rules and procedures for granting loans. There are certain rules to be followed for granting loan by the Bank, which has been enumerated in paragraph no. 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the C.B.I. It is stated that the Branch Manager without any application for loan and without having any verification report transferred Rs. 38,82,348/- to the account of M/s Kiran Machinery Stores in between 31.3.19.81 to 31.5.1981. Only list of borrowers was enclosed with the debit agricultural term loan voucher indicating the names of borrowers without their complete address and even some of the loanees were fictitious. 38,82,348/- to the account of M/s Kiran Machinery Stores in between 31.3.19.81 to 31.5.1981. Only list of borrowers was enclosed with the debit agricultural term loan voucher indicating the names of borrowers without their complete address and even some of the loanees were fictitious. It has also been stated in the said counter affidavit that the said Branch Manager allowed the dealers of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10298/S4, who are partners of M/s Kiran Machinery Stores, to withdraw the said amount out of the fund illegally transferred to the account of M/s Kiran Machinery Stores, Gogari. 20. Another counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the State Bank of India, opposite party no. 2, through Shri Deepak Kumar Sinha, Branch Manager, S.B.I. Maheshkhut Branch, Khagaria. It has been stated in the said counter affidavit that the Manager of the Branch has to follow amongst others the rules/circulars/standing orders issued by the S.B.I. for granting agricultural loans from time to time. Usually the loan applications are received by the Branch Manager after being forwarded by the Block office of the village concerned with the verification report regarding the "ownership and possession of landed property and no dues certificate". In case if the Bank receives application directly", it sends the same to the Block for the aforesaid verifications. The loan applications received are required to be recorded in Register known as "Application Received and Disposal Register". After completion of the formalities, the Branch official records his presanction report and put his recommendation for sanction of loan; on the basis of technical feasibility and economic viability of the loan proposals in the suitably designed format "Appraisal cum Pre sanction Survey Report". Thereafter having found the loan application in order in every respect, the Branch Manager has to record sanction of loan. 21. It has also been stated that all the Agricultural advance, both short term and middle term are done to be secured by mortgage of the farm land or third party guarantee or hypothecation of immovable assets, but mortgage may be waived in respect of loan not exceeding Rs.5,000/- in aggregate. 21. It has also been stated that all the Agricultural advance, both short term and middle term are done to be secured by mortgage of the farm land or third party guarantee or hypothecation of immovable assets, but mortgage may be waived in respect of loan not exceeding Rs.5,000/- in aggregate. It is only after performing all the formalities the Branch Manager will issue delivery orders in favour of the dealers with the stipulation that the dealers would effect the delivery of pumping sets to the borrowers in presence of the banks authorised official in accordance with the terms and conditions incorporated in their quotations. After delivery, the dealers will have to submit their bills along with the delivery challan duly acknowledged by the borrowers and endorsed by the bank officials. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that these dealers at the relevant time hatched and entered into a conspiracy with accused bank officials and in pursuance of the said, conspiracy, the dealers dishonestly and fraudulently defrauded the bank to the tune of more than one crore within six months, It has been asserted that some of the persons alleged to be the borrowers are fictitious and non existent persons and large number of alleged borrowers completely denied about their having applied for loan or having received any pumping set from the dealers 22. In paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the dealer has no where disputed the withdrawal of the huge amount from his account within the said period. 23. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the S.B.I. vehemently argued that there are plenty of evidence against the dealers and the bank officials regarding their criminality and the offence committed by them and there is no law which states that even if a criminal offence is made out the jurisdiction of the criminal court is ousted simply because the bank has filed civil suit for the recovery of the amount so defrauded. It was further contended by Mr. Sinha that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in regard to matters specially covered by the other provisions of the Code. It was further contended by Mr. Sinha that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in regard to matters specially covered by the other provisions of the Code. It can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Ordinarily a criminal proceeding instituted against an accused person must be tried under the provisions of the Code and the High Court would be reluctant to interfere with such proceeding at the initial stage. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision in the case of R.P. Kapur v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the nature and scope of the inherent power of this Court under Section 561 A of the old Criminal Procedure Code, equivalent to Section 482 of the New Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down some of the categories of cases where the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings can and should be exercised, namely, where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of the criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged or where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirity, do not constitute the offence alleged or where the allegations made against the accused persons do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. Similar views were reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagawawa v. Veeranna, A.I.R., 1976 S.C. 1947. Similar views were reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagawawa v. Veeranna, A.I.R., 1976 S.C. 1947. It is better to quote the language of the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself: "Thus it can be safely held that in the following cases an order of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside; (1) Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statement of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of the offence which is alleged against the accused; (2) Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently Improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (3) Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either or no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and (4) Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as want of sanction or absence of a complaint by a legally competent Authority and the like." 24. In the instant case it was argued by Mr. Sinha that the case of conspiracy, cheating forgery and misappropriation has been made out against the dealers on the basis of the first information report and materials available in the case diary. Therefore, the High Court should not examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint if proved would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. On a perusal of the first information report and on a consideration of the materials available on the record. I am satisfied that prima facie case against the dealers have been made out and the Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against them. 25. It is well settled that at the stage of issuing process the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not essential for the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case at that stage. 26. It is not essential for the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case at that stage. 26. It was pointed out on behalf of the dealers that no case against them can be made out under the P.C. Act, therefore, cognizance is bad because dealers are not the public servants. In reply to this submission, It was urged on behalf of the S.B.I. that the charge sheet has been submitted under Section 120B read with Section 420/477 A and 418 of the Penal Code and 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (c) and (d) of the P.C. Act, Therefore, cognizance can be taken against the dealers as well by the special Judge. Under Section 6 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, the State Government may appoint as many Special Judges as may be necessary for such area or areas as may be specified in the notification to try offences, namely, (a) an offence punishable under Section 161, 162, 163, 164 or Section 165A of the Penal Code or Section 5 of the P.C. Act, 1947. (b) any conspiracy to commit or any attempt to commit or any abetment of any of the offences specified in clause (a) Every offence specified in Sub Section (1) of Section 6 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed. Offences under Section 5 (a) of the P.C. Act and Section 477 A of the Penal Code can be tried together by the Special Judge. The fact that some of the offences with which the dealers are charged are not those enumerated in Section 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act does not take away the jurisdiction of the Special Judge because clause 3 of Section 7 of the Amendment Act has laid down that when a Special Judge is trying any case, he may also try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 be charged at the same trial. Reference may be made to a decision in the case of Union of India v. I.C. Lala etc., A.I.R. 1973 SC 2204, where it has been held that where offences under Section 5 (2) of the P.C. Act and Section 420 of the Penal Code are committed by same public servant and the business man in pursuance of a conspiracy, they all can be tried together by the Special Judge by virtue of Section 7 (3) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the contention of the leaned counsel for the dealers that cognizance by the Special Judge is bad in law. Similar views were also expressed earlier in the year 1961 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kandimalla Subbaiah and another, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1241, where it was held that though the Special Judge has jurisdiction which he is competent to exercise under the P.C. Act or the Criminal Law Amendment Act, still as provided under Section 7 (3), he can try an accused for offences under Section 120 B read with Sections 466, 467 and 420 of the Penal Code. 27. Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the dealers, lastly contended that the S.B.I. had already instituted a suit in the Civil Court against the dealers and therefore, the criminal prosecution is not maintainable. In support of his contention he has relied upon my decision in the case of Laxmi Narayan Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983 B.B.C.J, 518. In the said case, I have held that in view of the fact that the matter was pending before the Civil Court for realisation of money, it was not desirable and proper that the petitioner should also be dragged in the criminal court for the same cause of action and the continuance of the criminal proceeding was an abuse of the process of the court. But the facts of that case was entirely different from the facts of this case. In the aforesaid case there was a contract between the parties and under the terms of the agreement the petitioner had to deposit security and also to furnish indemnity bond. But the facts of that case was entirely different from the facts of this case. In the aforesaid case there was a contract between the parties and under the terms of the agreement the petitioner had to deposit security and also to furnish indemnity bond. There was a clause in the agreement that all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning this contract whatsoever shall be referred to the sole arbitrator of any person appointed by the Managing Director of the State Food Corporation. In that view of the matter it was held: "It is not disputed that there is an agreement between the parties and in the deed of agreement when there is an arbitration clause, I fall to understand why not the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator according to the terms of the agreement, Therefore, in such circumstances I think that the continuation of the criminal proceeding shall be an abuse of the process of the Court and it must be quashed." With great respect, I will say that this case does not help the dealers so far as the facts of the present case are concerned. 28. The law is well settled that mere pendency of a civil proceeding concerning the matter involved is not bar to the initiation of criminal proceeding, provided the action complained amounts to a criminal offence, Of course, if the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature, the court cannot allow the parties to get the dispute settled in a criminal court by a camouflage of a civil dispute as a criminal matter. But where the allegations in the complaint, however, disclosed criminal offence and if they are prima facie true, the dealers cannot escape their liabilities under the Criminal Law merely because a civil suit also has been filed against them in respect of the same matter. When by his action an accused person incurrs both the civil and criminal liabilities the mere fact that his civil liabilities is being enforced is no ground for exemption of his criminal liability. 29. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in these applications and, there fore, they are dismissed.