JUDGMENT - Mrs. RANJANA DESAI, J.:---This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of Criminal Proceedings instituted by respondent No. 1 by filing a complaint (C.R. No. 36/1991) with the Shivajinagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur. The petitioners are original accused Nos. 1 and 2. 2.Briefly stated the facts, which gave rise to this petition are as under :Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with Shivajinagar Police Station at Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, which is registered at C.R. No. 36/1991 contending that her husband is serving as Jail Superintendent at Kolhapur. In the year 1984-85, he was posted at Ichalkaranji. At that time, respondent No. 1 and her husband were residing at Ichalkaranji. Respondent No. 1 decided to do the business of saree printing. In the year 1985 she took on rent a shed from one Shri Kalawant. The shed was situated in Ichalkaranji Industrial Estate. She took loan for conducting the said business from the Sangli Bank Branch at Gujari, Ichalkaranji to the extent of Rs. 20,000/-. The agreed rent of the shed was Rs. 1,300/- per month. She started her business in the name and style of "Beena Saree Printers". 3.In the year 1986, her husband was transferred to Yerwada Jail, Pune and therefore, she had to go to Pune. As she did not want the factory to be closed down, she contacted petitioner No. 1, who was supplying screens to her in the aforesaid business. It was decided between the two i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 that the aforesaid business should be conducted in partnership and that petitioner No. 1 should pay an amount of Rs. 700/- towards the monthly loan instalment of the bank. In addition to this, he was to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/-. After excluding all these expenses, it was decided to share the remaining profit between them. 4.Respondent No. 1 came to Sangli in the year 1987. Thereafter, she came to Ichalkaranji and met Shri Kalawant from whom the shed was taken on rent. Shri Kalawant told her that petitioner No. 1 had not paid his rent and the factory is also not working. 4.Respondent No. 1 came to Sangli in the year 1987. Thereafter, she came to Ichalkaranji and met Shri Kalawant from whom the shed was taken on rent. Shri Kalawant told her that petitioner No. 1 had not paid his rent and the factory is also not working. Respondent No. 1 then went to the bank and after making enquiry with the bank, she came to know that petitioner No. 1 had not deposited the loan instalments of the bank. When she enquired with petitioner No. 1, he told her that there was no market in Ichalkaranji. It was decided between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1 that the implements of the business should be sold, and out of the sale proceeds the bank loan and the rent of the shed should be paid. It was also decided that as there were no customers, petitioner No. 1 should purchase the entire implements of the business. The sale price was decided at Rs. 1,07,000/-. After excluding Rs. 77,000/- which were the dues, the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000/- was to be paid to respondent No. 1. However, petitioner No. 1 took no steps in that behalf and therefore, respondent No. 1 sent a legal notice to petitioner No. 2 dated 22nd June 1989. After this notice, petitioner No. 1 deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the bank. Thereafter till date he has made no payment to the bank. 5.In the month of January, 1990, petitioner No. 1 along with his servants came to Kolhapur at respondent No. 1's residence and told her that there was a customer from Lakhanapur (Nippani), who was desirous of purchasing the implements of the factory. He stated that after the sale, he will pay the rent to Shri Kalawant and she should inform Shri Kalawant. Accordingly, she informed Shri Kalawant. On 17th January 1990, the servant of petitioner No. 1 came to respondent No. 1's residence and asked for Rs. 1,000/- for the truck fare. This amount was arranged by respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the implements of the business were transported to Lakhanapur (Nippani) by Bagwan Transport. Subsequently, the Transport Company phoned respondent No. 1's husband and informed him that the implements of the factory were taken to Lakhanapur in two trips, however, the Company had not received the fare of one trip. This amount was arranged by respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the implements of the business were transported to Lakhanapur (Nippani) by Bagwan Transport. Subsequently, the Transport Company phoned respondent No. 1's husband and informed him that the implements of the factory were taken to Lakhanapur in two trips, however, the Company had not received the fare of one trip. 6.When respondent No. 1 made enquiries, she was told that Shri Ramchandra Bhosale from Lakhanapur, who had purchased the implements was in difficulties and he will give a cheque within 10 days. Admittedly, till date the loan amount has not been paid. In March/April, 1990, respondent No. 1 contacted Shri Ramchandra Bhosale, who stated that he will give a cheque within 4 to 8 days. However, he did not keep his promise. On the basis of these facts, respondent No. 1 filed a complaint alleging that petitioner No. 1 has cheated her. On the basis of this complaint, the learned Magistrate issued process. In this petition, it is prayed that the said complaint registered at C.R. No. 36/1991 with the Shivajinagar Police Station, Ichalkaranji, District Kolhapur, be quashed. 7.I have heard Shri More, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Singhal, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who appears for the State. Respondent No. 1 is served, however, none appears for her. 8.Shri More contended that the complaint discloses no criminal offence at all and as such this Court should quash it. He stated that it is clear from the bare reading of the complaint that there was an oral agreement between petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 1. It is purely a money claim, which is sought to be converted into a criminal offence. The grievance of respondent No. 1 could be well taken care of by the Civil Court and it was not necessary for respondent No. 1 to set the criminal law in motion. He submitted that in the complaint, respondent No. 1 had stated that she had contacted Shri Ramchandra Bhosale to whom the machinery is admittedly sold and Shri Bhosale had admitted that he has not made payment and he would make payment within 4 to 8 days. However, Shri Bhosale could not keep his promise because he was in difficulties. The complaint, therefore, does not disclose any intention to cheat. On the other hand, Shri Singhal, the learned Addl. However, Shri Bhosale could not keep his promise because he was in difficulties. The complaint, therefore, does not disclose any intention to cheat. On the other hand, Shri Singhal, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, contended that the complaint does make out an offence of cheating. He stated that the petitioners misrepresented to respondent No. 1 that the machinery was to be sold to Shri Bhosale of Nippani and the sale proceeds could be utilised in repaying the bank loan, the rent of the shed and the remaining amount would be paid to respondent No. 1. On the basis of this, respondent No. 1 agreed that the machinery be sold to Shri Bhosale. She even paid the Transport Company. However, the petitioners did not fulfil their commitments. Shri Singhal submits that a criminal offence is prima-facie made out and therefore, the complaint does not deserve to be quashed. 9.With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have gone through the complaint. It is apparent that respondent No. 1 had made it clear to the petitioners that she had raised bank loan and that the rent of the shed is also to be paid to Shri Kalawant. Petitioner No. 1, knowing all these facts, took over the responsibility of the bank loan and also the rent of the shed. However, he failed to make payment as agreed. When respondent No. 1 sent a legal notice, petitioner No. 1 paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Thereafter, admittedly, till date no amount is paid to the bank. It was thereafter agreed that the machinery of the said factory would be sold and, out of the sale proceeds the bank loan and rent would be paid and the remaining sale proceeds would be paid over to respondent No. 1. Believing in the representation made by petitioner No. 1, respondent No. 1 agreed to sell the machinery of the factory. Accordingly, services of a Transport Company were hired. Respondent No. 1 had to bear the expenses of transporting the machinery to Nippani. The machinery was transported to Nippani, however, it is alleged that as agreed. Shri Bhosale did not make payment. 10.Shri More, the learned Counsel for the petitioners laid stress on the fact that Shri Bhosale had admitted that he had not paid the sale price to the petitioners. In my opinion, this alleged admission of Shri Bhosale does not help the petitioners. Shri Bhosale did not make payment. 10.Shri More, the learned Counsel for the petitioners laid stress on the fact that Shri Bhosale had admitted that he had not paid the sale price to the petitioners. In my opinion, this alleged admission of Shri Bhosale does not help the petitioners. The complaint, prima-facie, suggests that respondent No. 1 had been dishonestly induced to sell the machinery. She has lost the machinery as well as the money. A complaint of this type certainly cannot be described as one which does not, prima-facie, disclose any offence at all. I am unable to come to the conclusion that it discloses only a civil dispute. Whether or not Shri Bhosale had paid the sale price to the petitioners is a matter which can only be decided at the trial. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be invoked only in exceptional cases where interest of justice require the invocation thereof. This certainly, is not one of such cases which warrants interference of this Court. However, Shri More's submission that so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the complaint does not disclose any offence as against her needs to be considered. A perusal of the complaint shows that respondent No. 1 has not assigned any role to petitioner No. 2. She has only stated that on 22nd June 1989, she sent a notice through her Advocate Shri Kapse to petitioner No. 2. If petitioner No. 2 has not played any role in the series of transactions disclosed in the complaint and only a notice was sent to her then, it would not be proper to drag her in this case. However, since the entire record is not before this Court, this Court is not in a position to assess the role of petitioner No. 2. However, petitioner No. 2 will be at liberty to make an application for discharge before the learned Magistrate and if such an application is made, the learned Magistrate will consider the same on merits. The learned Magistrate will do so without being influenced by any observations made by me in this judgment. 11.In the view that I have taken, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1643 of 1992 stands dismissed. Writ Petition dismissed. -----