Judgment S.K.Katriar, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been preferred by the sole petitioner above-named with the prayer to quash the entire prosecution including the order of cognizance and issuance of process dated 20-6-92, passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Jehanabad, in Case No. 50/92, bearing Trial No. 880/780 of 1992/ 93, wherein cognizance has been taken under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. against the petitioner and three others. Of the four accused-persons mentioned in the petition of complaint (Annexure-2), the petitioner is accused No. 3, his wife is accused No. 4, and brother of the petitioner is accused No. 1, and his wife is accused No. 2. For reasons best known to them, accused No. 3 (petitioner herein) has alone moved this Court. 2. According to the allegations in the petition of complaint, accused No. 1 (Rajiv Nayan Dubey), and accused No. 3 (the petitioner herein), had opened a branch of North Eastern Finance Corporation Limited at Jehanabad, the registered office of which is at Gauhati, and the petitioner herein is the Executive Director (Administration), of the Corporation. The complainant and fourteen persons mentioned as witnesses in the petition of complaint (Annexure-2), had opened their Recurring Deposit Accounts with the Jehanabad Branch of the Corporation and had deposited money in their respective accounts. 2.1. The further allegation is that after the period of maturity was over, the investors had approached the Branch for payment but were informed that the Jehanabad branch had been converted into North Eastern Leasing Pvt. Ltd., the Managing Director of which is accused No. 3 (the petitioner herein), and the Executive Director is the said accused No. 1 (Rajiv Nayan Dubey), who is the full brother of the petitioner. The further allegation is that accused No. 2 (Pushpa Dubey, wife of Rajiv Nayan Dubey), and accused No. 4 (Manju Devi, wife of the petitioner), are shareholders. The Company has its bank account in State Bank of India, Jehanabad, and the entire money was deposited therein, and only accused Nos. 1 and 3 have the authority to withdraw the money. The investors were further informed that their applications for withdrawal were being referred to the Head Office in Pattia. The further allegation is that the investors thereafter met the accused-persons on various occasions in Jehanabad and Patna, but they always avoided to make payment. They . 1 and 3 have the authority to withdraw the money. The investors were further informed that their applications for withdrawal were being referred to the Head Office in Pattia. The further allegation is that the investors thereafter met the accused-persons on various occasions in Jehanabad and Patna, but they always avoided to make payment. They . had met the accused-persons in the Civil Court premises at. Jehanabad on 16-11-91, on which date they clearly denied to make the payment. The further allegation is that the accused-persons have started illegal organisations and are earning money by illegal means and have swindled about Rs. 1 lakh out of the complaint and witnesses. 2.2. The complaint petition goes on to state that they had .informed the Officer-in-charge of the Jehanabad police station on 17-11-91, who assured to take action in the matter but failed to take any action. Hence the petition of complaint. A copy of the same is marked Annexure-2 hereof. The same was registered as Complaint Case No. 50/880 of 1.992/92 Sunil Kumar V/s.Rajiv Nayan Dubey and Ors. On perusal of the complaint petition, the learned S.D.J.M, Jehanabad, passed the impugned order of cognizance dated 20-6-92. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order of cognizance, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no case is made out under Secs. 406 and 120-B of the I.P.C. In his submission, in order to establish the charge of criminal breach of trust within the meaning of Secs. 405 and 406, I.P.C., there must be entrustment of property with the accused, or he may have dominion over property which he must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use, or dishonestly used or disposed of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or any legal contract, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do. I am unable to accede to the submission, inasmuch as it is manifest from a plain reading of the allegations in the petition of complaint that it is entirely a conspiracy and a nefarious family business of the petitioner. Accused Nos. 2 and 4, the wives of accused Nos. 1 and 3, are share-holders. I am unable to accede to the submission, inasmuch as it is manifest from a plain reading of the allegations in the petition of complaint that it is entirely a conspiracy and a nefarious family business of the petitioner. Accused Nos. 2 and 4, the wives of accused Nos. 1 and 3, are share-holders. The petitioner as well as accused No. 1 (Rajiv Nayan Dubey), are mentioned in the petition of complaint as top functionaries who have master-minded the whole conspiracy. The allegation of swindling the money out of the investors is surely against these two persons and the entrustment was to them and who, in any case, had the dominion over the money in question. The petition of complaint clearly alleges that the entire money was being deposited in the account of State Bank of India, Jehanabad, and accused Nos. 1 and 3 (the petitioner), only have had the authority to withdraw the money. This prima facie shows that the petitioner and dominion over the property. 4. Learned Counsel next submitted that no offence under Sec. 420, I.P.C. is made out. He relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court, --, Hari Prasad Chamaria V/s. Bishun Kumar Surekha. 4.1. I am unable to accede to the contention of the petitioner. Paragraph 4 of the petition of complaint is a complete answer to the submission of the petitioner, which in substance alleges that the intention to cheat was from the very inception by starting such illegal organisations and duping people to earn money from them illegally which is the result of a criminal conspiracy. A criminal conspiracy inherently involves premeditation with which, according to the allegations, it had commenced. A case under Sec. 420, I.P.C. is prima facie made out on a plain reading of the petition of complaint. 4.2. There are clear allegations with respect to the applicability of Section 120-B, I.P.C. All the accused-persons had conspired from the very inception to start the illegal organisations and cheat the investors. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that it is a case of civil liability and that too against the Finance Company, because the money was deposited with it, rather than the Leasing Company. In his submission, North Eastern Finance Corporation Ltd. and North Eastern Leasing Pvt. Ltd. are different companies, as is manifest from the certificate of incorporation marked Annexures 1 and 1/1 respectively. In his submission, North Eastern Finance Corporation Ltd. and North Eastern Leasing Pvt. Ltd. are different companies, as is manifest from the certificate of incorporation marked Annexures 1 and 1/1 respectively. The investors had deposited the money with the Finance Company and, therefore, the entire claim can at best be made against the finance company and that too as a civil liability, 5.1. I am unable to accede to this contention either, inasmuch as the offences under Secs. 406 and 420, I.P.C. read with 120-B, I.P.C. have prima facie been made out against the accused-persons. It is clearly alleged in the petition of complaint that by way of criminal conspiracy. criminal breach of trust, and criminal intent on the part of the four accused-persons, the investors have been swindled out of the money. With respect to all the offences relating to theft, dacoity, criminal breach of trust, criminal misappropriation, cheating, etc., all within the ambit of Chapter XVII of the I.P.C., it is always open to the victim to file a civil suit for recovery of his wrongful loss. Law is well settled that the victim can simultaneously take recourse to both. All such offences relating to property invariable give rise to cause for civil action also. It is equally well known that a prosecution is meant to punish the accused, and civil action is for recovery of the property. A Single Judge judgment of this Court, reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 105, Sunil Kumar Boobna V/s. State of Bihar, is apposite, paragraph 8 of which is set out hereinbelow: It is well settled that for the purpose of quashing the complaint, j it is necessary to consider whether the allegations in the complaint, prima facie, make out an offence or not. Similarly for quashing the complaint by way of action at the thresh hold, it is necessary to consider whether on the face of the allegation a criminal offence is constituted or not. A particular Act may constitute both civil wrong as well as criminal wrong and merely because a civil action is also pursued, it does not render the criminal action impermissible. Thus. the facts and circumstances of the facts and circumstances of a particular case is to be considered before quashing the complaint or F. I. R. 6. A particular Act may constitute both civil wrong as well as criminal wrong and merely because a civil action is also pursued, it does not render the criminal action impermissible. Thus. the facts and circumstances of the facts and circumstances of a particular case is to be considered before quashing the complaint or F. I. R. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that it is clear from a plain reading of the impugned order of cognizance dated 12-6-92 that it is the result of non-application of the mind. I am unable to accede to this contention also. Learned Magistrate has written a fairly reasoned order while taking cognizance and summoning the accused-persons and has taken into account the entire materials on record and the provisions of law. He was not after all writing a judgment on conclusion of the trial. 7. Counsel lastly submitted that there can be merger of two companies in terms of the Companies Act, 1956, there cannot be merger of a branch of the Company into another Company. The contention on this score is wholly unmerited, inasmuch as in all criminal acts law is thrown to the winds. The petition of complaint clearly alleged that the companies have been illegally incorporated, and are the result of a conspiracy to swindle money out of the investors. Merger of two companies, or transfer of a branch of one company to another company, therefore, lose all meaning in view of the allegations that the organisations were brought about with the criminal intent to swindle money. In the present proceeding, the validity of merger in terms of the Companies Act is not in issue, but acts of criminal breach of trust, cheating, all as acts of conspiracy. The transfer of the Jehanabad Branch of the Finance Company to the Leasing Company was itself part of the conspiracy and cheating. 8. In the result, this application is dismissed, and the impugned order of cognizance dated 20-6-92, passed by the learned S.D.J.M, Jehanabad, in Complaint Case No. 50/92, bearing Trial No. 880/782 of 1992/93, Sunil Kumar V/s. Rajiv Nayan Dubey and Ors. is hereby upheld. Since it is a fairly old case, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial most expeditiously. 9. Let a copy of this order be faxed to the trial Court forthwith.