JUDGMENT S. Narayan, J. This revisional petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused to quash the criminal proceeding initiated on a complaint filed by the complainant-o.p. no. 2, which was registered as case no. 759/C of 1995 for the offence under section 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah. 2. The allegation in the case is that on March 10, 1992, the complainant o.p., on being induced by the petitioner, delivered eight sets of 5 H.P. Swaraj Brand diesel engines along with trolley valued at Rs. 62008.12 to the petitioner-accused, who, on his turn, asserted the complainant to pay the value of the same within a month. It was, therefore, alleged by the complainant that the petitioner-accused cheated him by not making payment inspite of the reminders. 3. A complaint to the above effect was filed in the court below after a lapse of about 3 years of the alleged transaction. The Magistrate entrusted an inquiry under section 202 of the Cr. P.C. to the Officer-in-Charge of M.P. Ghora Police Station and, subsequently, on receipt of a report from the said Officer-in-Charge the Magistrate took cognizance under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. 4. Upon hearing the ld. Counsel for the petitioner and also on looking into the materials on the record, I am of the considered opinion that the allegation in the case arises out of a simple merchantile transaction, in which there was a sale of certain diesel-engines on credit with oral stipulation to make payment of the price within a month of the transaction. It goes without saying that the transaction as such, also gives rise to a civil dispute between the parties. The parties, in a case like this, are most likely to join issue over the questions of payment, whether actually it was a credit transaction or a transaction on full payment and, if it was a credit transaction, whether or not the payment was actually made subsequently. This aspect of the matter can be better determined in a civil proceeding. It is true that an act of omission or commission may constitute a civil wrong to be settled in a civil proceeding and also a criminal act which needed a prosecution on the criminal side. This aspect of the matter can be better determined in a civil proceeding. It is true that an act of omission or commission may constitute a civil wrong to be settled in a civil proceeding and also a criminal act which needed a prosecution on the criminal side. In a situation like this, a court of law while going for a criminal proceeding ought to take a decision whether a process to be issued for a criminal prosecution would be in the interest of justice or not and whether the process of the court by way of criminal prosecution would be an exercise in futility. If it is by way of undue pressure tactics acting not bona fide, it is better not to go for it and insist upon the settlement of the dispute in a civil proceeding. In a situation when the parties resort to a criminal proceeding where remedy is also available in a civil court, there has been authoritative decisions given from time to time. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused has first drawn my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trilok Singh & Ors. vs. Satya Deo Tripathi, reported in AIR 1979, SC 850, wherein, there was a reference of a dispute between the parties relating to the purchase of a truck on hire purchase agreement and, according to the agreement, on default of anyone instalment, the financer had the right to terminate the hire purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck. On default of one of the instalments, the truck was forcefully seized and removed and, accordingly, a complaint was lodged for certain offences. The Supreme Court held in this case that the proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the court inasmuch as the dispute raised was purely of a civil nature even assuming the facts to be substantially correct. 5. Yet another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bal Krishna Das vs. P.C. Nayar, reported in AIR 1991 SC 1531 was sought to be relied upon by and on behalf of the petitioner-accused. In the given facts of the case, the Supreme Court was of the view that the matter relating thereto was purely of civil nature and, therefore, the prosecution of the offence under section 406 was held to be not maintainable. 6. In the given facts of the case, the Supreme Court was of the view that the matter relating thereto was purely of civil nature and, therefore, the prosecution of the offence under section 406 was held to be not maintainable. 6. Therefore, reliance being placed on the aforesaid two decisions, I may express my opinion that the instant case also relates to a pure and simple case of civil nature and I am of the view that the most appropriate remedy was in the civil court, and, in a case like present one, the criminal prosecution, lodged after three years of the transaction, was nothing but a pressure tactics and a court of law ought not to go for such criminal prosecution at the choice and whim of a party. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, this revisional petition must succeed and, accordingly, this is allowed the prosecution of the petitioner-accused in the criminal proceeding referred to above is hereby quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Revisional petition succeed and no order as to costs.