Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. The entire criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioners including the order talcing cognizance of the offence under Secs. 406 and 420 of the Penal Code are sotight to be quashed in this application as prayed for by the petitioners. 2. The complainant-company is manufacturer of medicine and allied products and also marketing the same. It is alleged in the complaint petition that it sold medicine worth Rs. 11 lakh 74 thousand and odd to the petitioners on assurance that the petitioners would make payment through cheque. Detail of invoices, by which medicines were sold as well as the amount, has been given in the complaint-petition. On 11.1.96, 17.1.96 and 6.2.96, three cheques were issued by the petitioners for the said amount but all the cheques were dishonoured by the Bank concerned due to insufficiency of amount in the account of the petitioners. On 23.2.96, the company informed the petitioners regarding such dishonoured of cheques and requested for payment of the same. In reply petitioner No. 2 wrote to the company on 11.3.96 that the entire payment would be made by 19.3.96. Up to October, 1996, though the petitioners made part payment through Pay Orders but thereafter no payment was made to the complainant and, as such, Rs. 6 lakh 20 thousand and odd are remained unpaid. 3. On such complaint being filed, the Judicial Magistrate examined the complainant on oath in which he has reiterated his allegation made in the complaint-petition. The learned Magistrate after perusing the allegations and the statements of the complainant and witnesses took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against the petitioners. 4. Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that the allegations made in the complaint do not make out any case of cheating inasmuch as it is an admitted fact that this business transaction was going on for several years and even after alleged dishonour of cheques the same is still continuing. Elaborating his argument, learned Counsel urged that for constituting an offence of cheating the complainant must show that an intention of cheating of accused was from the very inception. In support of his contention that business transaction will not come under any of the provisions of Section 420 of the Penal Code, he has relied on the decision in the case of Sri Shcuikar Lal Baheti and Anr. In support of his contention that business transaction will not come under any of the provisions of Section 420 of the Penal Code, he has relied on the decision in the case of Sri Shcuikar Lal Baheti and Anr. V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 1999 (1) PCCR 89. and in the case of Smt Chandrika G. Shah V/s. Sunil Kumar Singh. 1989 BLJ 352 . and also in the case of T.K. Kanungo and Ors. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1988 BLJR 449 . His second contention is that mere allegation of dishonour of cheque will not amount to offence of cheating but at best it can be an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. For this proposition, he has relied on the decision in the case of Chandan Kumar V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2000 (1) PCCR 17. 5. Countering the argument, Mr. P.N. Pandey, Senior Advocate, contended that illustration (d) of Sec. 415 of the Penal Code will cover the case of the petitioners inasmuch as there was inducement by the petitioners for getting the medicines from the complainant on assurance that the amount of such medicine would be paid by cheques. Thus, when cheques were dishonoured and in spite of written request by the complainant, the petitioners did not make the full payment, a case of cheating is made out. and the High Court will not quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the dispute was of some business transactions. 6. At a first glance, the argument of Mr. B.P. Pandey appears to be attractive but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my view, the submission of the Counsel that the allegations made by the complainant does not make out any offence of cheating is not sustainable. The complainant has specifically averred that on understanding that the petitioners would make payment through cheque, he sold medicine worth Rs. 11 lakh and odd. Uncontrovertibly, three cheques were given to the complainant but those were dishonoured for insufficiency of amount in the account. If this could have been the only allegation that the cheques given by the petitioners merely bounced a case of cheating might not have been made out. 11 lakh and odd. Uncontrovertibly, three cheques were given to the complainant but those were dishonoured for insufficiency of amount in the account. If this could have been the only allegation that the cheques given by the petitioners merely bounced a case of cheating might not have been made out. But, as it appears from the complaint-petition that when the cheques were bounced the complainant inlbrmed the petitioners about the same and requested to make payment of the price for medicine already sold to them. The letter dated; 11.3.96 (Annexure-4) indicates that petitioner No. 2 assured the complainant that the entire amount would be paid within 19.3.96. He further assured that in future there would be no bouncing of cheques. Thereafter, it appears, part payment was made up till October 1996. but since then no payment was made to the complainant-company and, as such, Rs. 6,20,072.00 remained unpaid. On request being made, the petitioners avoided to make payment of the balance amount on some pretext or other. These allegations clearly indicate that even after the cheques were dishonoured the petitioners assured the complainant that entire amount would be paid within certain time but instead of making payment in whole a part payment was made through Pay Orders and after October, 1996, no payment was made in spite of repeated request made by the complainant. These facts, in my view, clearly show mal-intention of the petitioners. The argument sought to be advanced on behalf of the petitioners that in order to make out an offence of cheating the dishonest intention since very inception has to be proved, in my view, is devoid of merit. Ingredients of different offences under the Penal Code need not be proved only by direct evidence and they can be shown from a circumstance of a particular case that the intention of the accused was dishonest since very inception or that he developed such intention at some stage for their wrongful gain or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. All the circumstances and the materials to prove such a charge have to be collected during investigation and inquiry and ultimately, it to be produced before the Court at the stage of trial for a verdict as to whether the ingredients of offence in question have been established on behalf of the prosecution. All the circumstances and the materials to prove such a charge have to be collected during investigation and inquiry and ultimately, it to be produced before the Court at the stage of trial for a verdict as to whether the ingredients of offence in question have been established on behalf of the prosecution. Reference, if any, may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Khemka V/s. The State of Bihar -- . Their Lordships in that very decision have held that exercising its power under Sec. 482, Cr.P.C. the High Court will not usurp the jurisdiction of a trial Court by holding a parallel trial. 7. From the facts aforesaid, it can be very well presumed that the complainant was induced to despatch the medicine on the representation that the entire price of the medicine would be paid by cheques. No doubt, cheques were given but ultimately those were dishonoured by the Bank. When the complainant informed the petitioners about the same, petitioner No. 2 gave a letter assuring that the entire amount would be paid within 19.3.96. It is alleged that though part payment was made, a sum of Rs. 6 lakh and odd were not paid even after his request and the petitioners tried to avoid such payment. This conduct of the petitioners prima facie shows that they have developed a dishonest intention afterwards, though not since the understanding was made between the parties. 8. In almost similar circumstances in the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry V/s. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. -- , their Lordships have deprecated quashing of the criminal prosecution at an early stage. The decision in the case of Chandan Kumar (supra), relied upon by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my view, is easily distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of this case. From perusal of the judgment, it appeals that criminal prosecution was quashed solely on the ground that the order talcing cognizance against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Act was barred by limitation as envisaged under Sec. 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court did not go into the question as to whether a case of cheating can be made out. The case of Chandrika G. Shah (supra), is another decision relied upon by Mr. This Court did not go into the question as to whether a case of cheating can be made out. The case of Chandrika G. Shah (supra), is another decision relied upon by Mr. B.P. Pandey but I am of the view that the principles settled by this Court, instead of helping the petitioners, goes against them. This Court examining essential ingredients of Sec. 420 of the Penal Code has observed that essential ingredients for an offence of cheating is that on the basis of a fraud, the complainant is induced to part with any valuable right. In the instant case, this principle is applicable because as observed earlier the complainant on the understanding that the entire price of the medicine would be paid to him through cheques, supplied the same. But, ultimately even after the cheques given by the petitioners were bounced, they did not pay the entire amount but only made part payment. What led the petitioners to withhold a sum of Rs. 6 lakh and odd is to be decided by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Another decision relied upon by Mr. Pandey is the case of T.K. Kanungo and Ors. (supra), which, in my view, is also distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. There is no two opinions about the settled principle that mere dishonour of cheque cannot in all cases amount to the commission of offence of cheating as it does not parse constitute such offence. But in the instant case, it has been found earlier that the allegation is not merely of dishonouring of the cheques but also petitioners subsequent conduct in withholding the balance amount in spite of assurance given by them. The last decision relied by Mr. B.P. Pandey is that of Shn Shankar Lal Baheti and Anr. (supra) for his submission that the allegations of the complainant may give rise to civil dispute and for that a criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to stand. This argument also, as law stands today cannot be of much help to the petitioners. In Rajesh Bajajs case -- ) the apex Court has held that "it may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But, that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In Rajesh Bajajs case -- ) the apex Court has held that "it may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But, that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a transaction. In fact, many a cheating were committed in the course of commercial and also money transaction. "This principle has again been reiterated in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma Put Ltd. V/s. Biological P. Ltd. and Ors. -- . 9. On the contrary in the case of K.S. Anto V/s. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1993 (76) Com. Cas. 105, the Kerala High Court has observed that the bar under Article 20(2) of the Constitution that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once cannot be said to be violated by Sec. 138. Offences under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code are different and the ingredients are also different. Conviction for different offences separately is not barred under Article 20(2). In spite of prosecution and conviction under Sec. 138, there will be no constitutional bar to prosecution for an offence punishable under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and a prosecution will lie, if such an offence is made out. 10. Considering all aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that at this stage, the High Court will not interfere in the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution. 11. I find no merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.