KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the orders dated 3. 5. 1993 passed by the Munsif-Magistrate, Ranikhet, district Almora in Criminal case No. 167 of 1993. By the first order dated 3. 5. 1993 he has summoned the accused-applicants under Section 420 read-with Sec. 120b, I. P. C. while by the order dated 8. 9. 1993 he has directed issue of fresh process to the accused as the summons issued earlier were not received after service. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the complaint, on the basis of some oral agreement between the parties the accused-applicants agreed to purchase metal powder, a product of respondent Company, and the payment was to be made through bank builty but the applicants in collusion with the Transporters took delivery of the consignment directly from the transporter and not through bank and in this way they deceived the respondent No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 1704487. 64. The complainant Company examined the Director of the Company Shri Gopal Ji Mehrotra under Sec. 200 Cr. P. C. and two witnesses under Sec. 202 Cr. P. C. The Magistrate finding a prima-facie case made out against the accused-applicants has summoned them by means of the order dated 3. 5. 1993 under the aforesaid Sections. Primely it is against that order that they have come up to this Court in the above revision. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the applicants was that there was a deal of sale and purchase of some commercial goods between the parties, which was a matter of accounting, and if the applicants had committed any breach of that contract, no criminal prosecution could be launched and the learned Magistrate has committed an error of law in summoning the accusedapplicants under Section 420 read-with Sec. 120b I. P. C. In support of that contention he cited the following reported decisions: (i) K. Periasami v. Rajendran (ii) Ratanlal Sharma and Ors. v. Mangeram Ghanshyamdas and Anr. (iii) Abdul Rahim v. Inspector of Police (iv) Dadasabab Babu Sahab Naik and Ors. v. State of Mah. (v) Radharaman Salim v. Trilochana (vi) Ram Niwas and Ors. v. Zafar Abbas and Anr. (vii) Vidya Dhar v. State7 Alok Pd. Jam and Anr. v. Add. Munsif Magistrate and Anr. (ix) Mohd Raji v. State (x) Han Pd. Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and Anr. v. State of Mah. (v) Radharaman Salim v. Trilochana (vi) Ram Niwas and Ors. v. Zafar Abbas and Anr. (vii) Vidya Dhar v. State7 Alok Pd. Jam and Anr. v. Add. Munsif Magistrate and Anr. (ix) Mohd Raji v. State (x) Han Pd. Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and Anr. ( 4 ) ON the contrary, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent was that the mere fact that a civil proceeding is pending or can be initiated would be no ground to debar a person from launching criminal prosecution if cheating and dishonesty inducing delivery of property is prima-facie made out and secondly that in the present case the accused applicants have merely been summoned by the Magistrate for the offence under Sec. 420 I. P. C. read with 120b I. P. C. It is not justifiable at this stage for the High Court to interfere with the impugned order in revision. The accused can claim discharge under Sec. 245 (1) or 245 (2) Cr. P. C. before the Magistrate concerned if the allegation made in the complaint do not constitute any offence or their prosecution is frivolous or vexatious or prima facie case is not made out against them, and in support of that contention that both civil and criminal proceedings can co-exist, had cited the following case law: ( Wishwanath Jiloka v. Munsif Lower Criminal Court (ii) Som Nath Tyagi v. State of U. P. (iii) Khacheru Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors. (iv) Ram Sagar v. Smt. Shiv Rani (v) Pritibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar (vi) Vikas Kothari v. State of UP. and Anr. (vii) Debavrata Gupta v. S. K. Ghosh ( 5 ) NOW in the background of the case law cited from both the sides it has to be seen that if from an act of a person both criminal and civil liabilities flow, can criminal prosecution also be resorted to and if the answer is in negative the High Court should quash the criminal proceedings on that ground alone. ( 6 ) NO doubt inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. ( 6 ) NO doubt inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can be invoked for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated illegally, vexatiously as being without jurisdiction or the allegations made against the accused do constitute an offence but there is neither legal evidence adduce in support of the case nor evidence clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge but in its jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or sufficient or not This power should be exercised very sparingly to prevent abuse of any process of court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Can it be possible for High Court to examine in each case where the accused raises plea that his prosecution is false and vexatious or the allegations on the face of the complaint do not make out a prima facie case of any offence or the evidence on record is not sufficient to record a conviction particularly the redress of his grievance or his plea can be examined at the first instance by the Magistrate in the specific provisions of Section 245 (1) or Sec. 245 (2) Cr. P. C. The plea or submission of the applicants that the allegations do not make out a prima facie case against them or the matter in dispute is in respect of account for sale and purchase or of a civil nature can be examined by the Magistrate under Section 245 (1) or Sec. 245 (2), Cr. P. C. as the case may be. ( 7 ) SO far as the next question regarding maintainability of the criminal prosecution in view of the fact that civil remedy is available is concerned, if any person obtains money over Rs. 17 lacs by practicing fraud or deception on the complainant party such accused person cannot escape his criminal liability under Sec. 420, I. P. C. besides incurring civil liability also. The matter is not changed if the level of revision against the summoning order under Sec. 397/401, Cr. P. C. is replaced by a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaint in the inherent jurisdiction. The matter is not changed if the level of revision against the summoning order under Sec. 397/401, Cr. P. C. is replaced by a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the complaint in the inherent jurisdiction. On the basis of the view taken by this Court as well as the Supreme Court; as stated above, Civil and criminal liability in respect of the same matter are not in exclusion to each other but are co-extensive and can go on together in different-courts. Thus in view of that legal position. I am reluctant to interfere with the impugned orders at this stage. Accordingly, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed. .