JUDGMENT In this petition, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheopur Kalan, initiated on a private complaint disclosing the commission of offences under sections 427, 467 and 420 of I.P.C. and section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of non-petitioner, which had bounced as no payment was made by the Bank. It is contended by the petitioner that the transaction was of civil nature, and the non-petitioner could not be permitted to resort to the criminal action, as that amounted to the abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, the proceedings deserve quashing by this Court under the inherent powers vested by virtue of section 482, Cr.P.C. When the cheque, issued by the petitioner, was dishonoured by the Bank, the transaction appeared to disclose a prima-facie case against the petitioner. As such, the contention that the transaction was of civil nature and there could be no justification for initiating the criminal proceedings by the non-petitioner against the petitioner, has no legal ground or the base. The civil and the criminal proceedings have the different dimensions. An Act may ensue civil consequences, but may also be a proof punishable under the Criminal Law. In the cases like the present one, the civil remedy would be for the recovery of the amount, as that relief cannot be granted by a Criminal Court. But if the Act gives rise to criminal consequences and makes it punishable under the Criminal Law, there could be no bar for initiating the criminal proceedings or even the two simultaneous parallel proceedings. Shri T.C. Singhal appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the authority of Ashok Kumar Doshi v. Siyaram ( 1982 JLJ 445 ), but it is of no help to the petitioner and rather goes against him. It was observed by this Court in the cited authority that -- "Only because the incident has given rise to a civil liability, the remedy under criminal law should not be allowed to proceed, will not be the correct proposition of law. It is the choice of the party, whether he should proceed on the basis of criminal liability or on the basis of civil liability arising out of the incident which has taken place between the parties. It is the choice of the party, whether he should proceed on the basis of criminal liability or on the basis of civil liability arising out of the incident which has taken place between the parties. Therefore, in my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel that as a civil suit is pending between the parties, I should quash the proceeding before the criminal Court. I am not in a position to accept." The non-petitioner's counsel submits that the two liabilities are distinct in their scope and there is no legal prohibition if the two parallel proceedings were permitted to continue. In this regard, a reference was made to the authority of this Court in P. Janardhan Rao v. State of M.P. (1991 (1) MPWN SN 115), wherein, it was observed that:-- "As far as the recovery of the amount is concerned that can also be done in a Civil Suit. This does not mean that the criminal liability in the Criminal Law has come to an end." For the foregoing reasons, I have found no substance in this petition and it has to meet its legal fate of dismissal. Ordered accordingly.