Judgment :- ‘SUNPOWER PRODUCTS’ situated at Block V.97, Anna Nagar, Madras-40 is a partnership firm. One Sudhakar was one of the partners of the firm. The petitioner herein, a native of Kerala, residing at Madras, got befriended with the said Sudhakar, had frequented his office and got acquainted with the other partners of the firm. In the course of such frequent visits and acquaintance with the office of the firm, he posed himself as the owner of a huge rubber estate in Kerala. In proof of his aristocracy, he moved in very high circles and represented to be a member of many of the prestigious clubs in Madras. On certain occasions, he had thrown lavish parties to the said Sudhakar and partners in such clubs. He would very often resort to give a very rosy picture about his rubber estate, possibly with a view to induce them to make investment in his estate, knowing fully well that the partners are in search of profitable investment proposition. Having prepared a fertile base, on 8. 1985, he persuaded and induced Sudhakar and partners to pay him a sum of one lakh of rupees to meet some urgency in his rubber estate and without his being asked to give any voucher or issue any promissory note in token of receipt of the cash, he voluntarily issued promissory notes to the tune of one lakh of rupees, obviously to gain their confidence representing that he would return the amount within a period of one month. Believing the representation so made, a sum of one lakh of rupees had been paid to him. He did not honour his commitment and it came to be known that he made such fraudulent representation and dishonestly induced them to part with the amount. Somehow or other, the partners of the firm were able to recover Rs.30,000 and for me balance, the cheques he issued got bounced. On the report lodged by the said Sudhakar, the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Madras-8 registered the case and after completing the formalities of the investigation, lodged a final report against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sec.420, I.P.C., which is now pending as C.C.No.9308 of 1986 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. 2. 2. On receipt of the process, the petitioner-accused came forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against him. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would with all vehemence and force submit that the entirety of the materials collected during the course of investigation, in the shape of Sec.161, Cr.P.C. statements of witnesses, inclusive of the complaint lodged by the said Sudhakar and the final report under Sec. 173(2), Cr.P.C, if carefully analysed, would point out that the transaction between the parties is exclusively of civil nature, giving rise to action before a civil forum and do not at all constitute the requisite ingredients for making out an offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. as against the petitioner and therefore it is that the proceedings are liable to be quashed, to which learned Additional Public Prosecutor would express strong disapproval by stating that the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case are such that apart from the initiation of civil action, the materials collected do prima facie indicate an offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. as against the petitioner and as such, the action initiated by the police in filing a final report is sustainable in law and he has to undergo the ordeal of the trial before the Court below. 4. Even at the outset, I must state that the facts of the case, in a given situation may give rise to an action, both before civil as well as criminal forums. In such cases, the facts may give rise to a cause of action for the institution of civil proceedings, apart from constituting the ingredients of an offence requiring prosecution before the competent criminal forum. In those cases, it cannot be stated that the action before one forum is a bar to the action in the other forum. There may be certain cases in which civil action alone is legally permissible, in the sense of those facts not constituting the ingredients of any offence. But the facts of the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is one in respect of which, both the actions are legally permissible. There may be certain cases in which civil action alone is legally permissible, in the sense of those facts not constituting the ingredients of any offence. But the facts of the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is one in respect of which, both the actions are legally permissible. The conduct of the petitioner in getting acquainted with Sudhakar and other partners of the firm and posing himself as a man belonging to aristocracy, in the sense of owning himself huge rubber estate in Kerala, anterior to the point of his making a demand for a sum of one lakh of rupees to be given to him to meet the emergency situation in his rubber estate, is so eloquent to point out the criminal intention and design to cheat Sudhakar and partners, when especially he has made a false and fraudulent representation and dishonestly induced them to part with a huge amount, inasmuch as he was not owning any rubber estate in Kerala, as revealed by the averments in the complaint as well as Sec. 161, Cr.P.C. statements of other witnesses recorded in this case. Had not there been the trickery device and deception and false representation and dishonest inducement made by him, Sudhakar and other partners would not have parted with such a huge amount, resulting in a wrongful loss to the partners and unlawful gain to the petitioner. In such state of affairs, it cannot be stated that the materials collected so far do not prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioner-accused in the commission of the offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. 5. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.