Judgment : 1. The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.4279 of 1980 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. 2. He caused an advertisement to be published in The Hindu dated 16.6.1978 under ‘Business Offers: “A potential……..Please Contact Box No.1381, C/o.The Hindu, Madras-600 002.” One Vaidyanathan employed as a stenographer in Larsen & Toubro Limited responded to the advertisement on the same date. On 27th June, 1978, he received a letter from the accused asking him to meet him in his house on 29.6.1978 at 10 A.M. He again contacted him over phone and met him on 30.6.1978 at 1.30 P.M. at his office at No.108, Armenian Street, 1st Floor, Madras-1. At such meeting, the accused appeared to have told him that he had received scores of applications, out of which he had selected only five or six applications. The accused is also stated to have represented to him that since he was having experience in administrative line, he would help him in managing his business. The further representation made by him was that he was dealing in aluminium sheets and in fact was supplying such aluminium sheets to public undertakings such as Pallavan Transport Corporation, KattabommanTransport Corporation etc. He was also a quota’ licence-holder in aluminium sheets. He was getting his supply from Indian Aluminium Company. He had two orders on hand for a total quantity of 40 tonnes. His commission was Rs.2,000 per tonne. He appeared to have told him that if he invested initially a sum of Rs. 10,000 to be increased at a later point of time to Rs.25,000 he would be paid a salary of Rs.700 per month, besides himself, to be taken as a partner in his business and he would pay 50% of share in the profit. Believing the representation so made, he parted with the sum of Rs. 10,500. The accused did not honour his commitment and subsequently it transpired that the complainant had been cheated. Consequently, he lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Egmore, Madras, who in turn registered the case in Crime No.129 of 1979 for the alleged offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. 3. After completing the formalities of investigation, a final report under Sec. 173(2), Cr.P.C. had been laid for the aforesaid offence against the accused, which was taken on file and is pending in the aforesaid Calendar Case. 4. After completing the formalities of investigation, a final report under Sec. 173(2), Cr.P.C. had been laid for the aforesaid offence against the accused, which was taken on file and is pending in the aforesaid Calendar Case. 4. The accused entered appearance and a charge had been framed. It is only’ at this stage, he had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire materials gathered during the course of investigation, if scanned in proper perspective, would point out that the transaction between the parties is purely of civil nature and no offence whatever would be stated to have been committed by the petitioner-accused and therefore it is that the criminal proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. 6. Learned Government Advocate would, however, repel such a submission. 7. A transaction may give rise to actions, civil and criminal simultaneously or any one of the actions depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. There may be a transaction in respect of which both actions are legitimately permissible, in the sense of the transaction giving rise to a cause of action for initiation of civil proceedings before a competent civil forum as well as containing necessary ingredients constituting an offence in respect of which criminal prosecutions are to be launched. The possibility of a transaction purely being of a civil nature or purely of criminal nature cannot at all be ruled out of consideration. The question to be decided in this case is as to whether the transaction giving rise to an action having a cause of action only for the initiation of civil proceedings alone or whether it contains materials giving rise to criminal and civil actions simultaneously. 8. Admittedly the accused had given an advertisement in The Hindu as stated above under the caption ‘Business offers: A Potential……“ It is not as if the advertisement called for investment in the business conducted by the petitioner and consequently the complainant Vaidyanathan made an investment of Rs. 10,500 pursuant to the advertisement so made, so that it can be stated that it is only a transaction, which is purely of civil nature. 10,500 pursuant to the advertisement so made, so that it can be stated that it is only a transaction, which is purely of civil nature. It is only subsequent to the advertisement in The Hindu the complainant contacted the petitioner and so many alluring representations were stated to have been made to him such as he is to be given a salary of Rs.700 per month, besides he is to be given 50% share of the profits of the business, on his being taken as a partner, in case he makes an initial investment of Rs.10,000 to be subsequently increased gradually to Rs.25,000. It is only on such representations made by the petitioner, the complainant parted with a sizable amount of Rs.10,500. The representations so made were subsequently found out to be fraudulent and those representations appeared to have been made with the dishonest intention of cheating him. No doubt, the petitioner is said to have executed a promissory note in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,500. But the subsequent execution of a promissory note by itself is not sufficient to point out that it is purely of civil nature. The offence of cheating becomes complete on the day when fraudulent representations were made and such representations were acted upon, in the sense of the complainant being dishonestly induced to part with a sizable amount. In this view of the matter to say that the transaction is purely of a civil nature and no offence had been committed by the petitioner under Sec.420, I.P.C. cannot at all be countenanced. 9. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.