JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner in connection with Case No. RC 2(A)/96(D) including the Order dated 11.2.2000 passed by the Special Judge. CBI Dhanbad, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance for an offence under Section 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The short facts giving rise to this application that the First Information Report was lodged alleging therein that during the period 1992-94 the accused-persons including the petitioner entered into a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same the then Senior Manager, Vijya Bank, Shri Rat nakar Megde dishonestly and fraudulently, by abusing the official position, allowed credit facilities to the Directors of M/s. Continental Transport and Construction Company. It is further alleged that the Bank during the said period of 1992-94 allowed the payment to the tune of Rs. 20.16 lakhs (approximately) against the 4th Running Account bill raised by the petitioner against the contract of installation of one Feeder Breaker at G.O.C.P.. Bastacolla Area-II of BCCL Dhanbad. by discounting the said bill amounting to about Rs. 22.40 lakhs. It is also alleged that the said amount of Rs. 22.40 lakhs was payable to the Vijay Bank, Dhanbad but the petitioner was allowed to realise the bill proceeds of the said bill directly from BCCL which was deposited in a different Bank Account and thereafter encashed, thereby causing wrongful Jose and by entering into the conspiracy misappropriated a huge amount. The Director to M/s. petitioner Company collected the bill proceeds from Area No. IX of BCCL through Cheque No. 440284 dated 19.4.1994 and encashed the said amount being Rs. 22.40 lakhs in the account of M/s. CTCC maintained at SBI, Ramgarh Cantonment. 3. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. The CBI Investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons including the petitioner. 4. The Special Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record took cognizance by the order impugned finding prime facie case for the offences mentioned above. 5. The opposite party (CBI) filed the counter affidavit claiming therein that (hen-is no illegality in the order impugned as Shri M.P. Singh. 4. The Special Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record took cognizance by the order impugned finding prime facie case for the offences mentioned above. 5. The opposite party (CBI) filed the counter affidavit claiming therein that (hen-is no illegality in the order impugned as Shri M.P. Singh. Area Finance Manager of Bastacolla, BCCL Dhanbad got a letter issued with the connivance to the Branch Manager of Dhanbad at 19.3.1994 served with a bill has been passed for payment of Rs. 22,40,1 06.72 ps in favour of the petitioner and the copy of the said letter was sent to the petitioner by the said accused as well as on 19.3.1994 one of the Directors of the petitioner had sent letter to the Area Finance Manager on the same day instructing him to pay the amount of bill. It is further claimed that it was not correct that whole amount payable with interest to the Bank was paid by the petitioner in between 1.10.1994 to 22.11.1994, rather it was adjusted in piece meal in between 16.8.1994 to 22.11.1994 and after calculation it was found that an amount of Rs. 44,340/- is still outstanding against S.B.P./O.D./1994. The Bank has also clarified that the account of the petitioner was non performance assets account under substandard assets on 31.3.1999 w.e.f. 30.9.1998 owing to the over dues bills and there is prima facie case made out against the petitioner and as such the petition is fit to be dismissed. 6. A reply to the counter affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating the same facts more or less. The opposite party also again filed reply thereof, reiterating the same position, as stated in counter affidavit. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted at the very outset that by letter dated 28.2.2000 submitted, the petitioner to the Senior Manager, Vijaya Bank. The opposite party also again filed reply thereof, reiterating the same position, as stated in counter affidavit. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted at the very outset that by letter dated 28.2.2000 submitted, the petitioner to the Senior Manager, Vijaya Bank. Dhanbad requested for serving the correct factual position related to this matter and it was expressly mentioned by the petitioner that the payment of the concerned cheque by BCCL was made to them only by an oversight/mistake, which was detected by them and it was the petitioner who had them- selves intimated to the bank in regard to the mistake and thereafter voluntarily paid the entire amount alongwith interest between 1.10.1994 to 22.11.1994 as well as the Bank never disputed any of the facts stated in the petitioners letter and there is no any grievance to the Bank. It was also argued that the payments were made alongwith the entire interest payable to the bank chargeable at the rate of 24.5 per cent for the usual period of discounting/purchase and at the rate of 26.5 per cent for over due/delayed period and as such no case against the petitioner is made out, at this stage, as well as the charges levelled against the petitioner are entirely on assumption which cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is also argued that it has duly been certified by the bank that the entire credit limit of Rs. 824.95 lakhs including a SBP/OD) limit of Rs. 50 lakhs of the petitioners firm was duly sanctioned by the Board of Vijaya Bank, which had full power to do the sanction of such limit as well as on 19.3.1994 the fixed deposit of the petitioner was lying with the Bank amounting to Rs. 8S.69.564/- and in spite of the disclosing of all these facts to the competent authority the charge-sheet against the petitioner has been fifed without basis. It is further argued that the CBI also admitted in the counter affidavit about the entire payment of principle amount, though a fresh stand was taken that an amount of Rs. 44.340/- is still outstanding as the interest payable against SBP/OD of 1994 which will be evidently due to a calculation error made by the Bank. It is also argued that the FIR was lodged as against Shri Ratnakar Hedge, the Sr. Manager. 44.340/- is still outstanding as the interest payable against SBP/OD of 1994 which will be evidently due to a calculation error made by the Bank. It is also argued that the FIR was lodged as against Shri Ratnakar Hedge, the Sr. Manager. Vijaya Bank also, but the Investigating agency did not find sufficient evidence against him and he was let off, as the charge-sheet was not submitted against him when the said Sri Hedge had granted over draft facility under the authority of Board to the petitioner and, therefore, if the criminal liability against Hedge disappears, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any criminal liability. Moreover, the entire amount said to be credited in the account of the petitioner has already been paid back with interest and as such no case under Section 420, IPC or other offence is made out against the petitioner and the order of cognizance as well as entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the cases of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, 1992 Cr LJ 2916 (SC); G. Sagar Suri and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2000 (100) Comp Cas 610 (SC); Pepsi Food Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. 1998 (6) SCC 749 : 1998 (1) East Cr C 171 (SC); Hirday Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar and Anr. 2000(1) JLJR (SC) 599; Sunil Kumar v. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. and Ors. MR 2000 SC 27 and Hardeo Singh v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2000) 5 SCC 623 : 2000 (2) East Cr C 765 (SC). 8. .On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI contended before me that there is no illegality in the impugned order of taking cognisance and the learned Special Judge has rightly took cognizance after finding prima facie case against the petitioner. It is further argued that the petitioner alongwith others is party to a criminal conspiracy to cheat BCCL and Vijaya Bank by receiving the amount of Rs. 20.14. 576.72 ps and in conniving with the official of BCCL the petitioner obtained the cheque against the aforesaid bill from the BCCL and submitted the same in their other account at a far away place at SB1. Ramgarh Branch at Haxaribagh and later on withdrawn this amount from that Bank. 20.14. 576.72 ps and in conniving with the official of BCCL the petitioner obtained the cheque against the aforesaid bill from the BCCL and submitted the same in their other account at a far away place at SB1. Ramgarh Branch at Haxaribagh and later on withdrawn this amount from that Bank. It is also submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to enjoy the SBP/OD facility at the relevant time from Vijaya Bank and it was not renewed in 1994 and, therefore, Branch Manager of the Bank was not having the power to discount the bill of the petitioner under SBP/OD facility during 1994. and as such the petitioner has cheated the Bank firstly by way of discounting the bill against non renewed SBP/OD account and secondly by way of obtaining the cheque directly from BCCL and depositing it at SBI at different place and withdrew arid misappropriated the same though the amount was said to have been adjusted on different dates, still a sum of Rs. 44.340/- is still outstanding. It is further argued that Shri Ratnakar Hedge was not found to be responsible during investigation as the other Senior Branch Manager. Shri S.N. Bhattacharjee was actually found to be responsible, who has been made accused in the charge-sheet instead of Shri Hedge and so the question for letting off the official of Bank does not arise in the instant case. The learned Special Judge rightly took cognizance of the case and as such this petition is fit to be dismissed. Counsel for the opposite party also relied upon the cases reported in Med-chi Chemical and Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd. and Ors. 2000 (2) East Cr Cases. 524 (SC); State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma and Anr. 1992 (Suppl) 1 SCC 222 : 1991 East Cr C 425 (SC) and Maratt Rubber Ltd. v. J.K. Marattukulam. 2001 (1) JLJR 145 (SC). 9. Obviously, the fourth running accounts bill was prepared in the office of Area Civil Engineer. Bastacolla. BCCL and it was passed for Rs. 22,40,106.72. It is also admitted position that the said amount was credited in the account of the petitioner maintained at SBI, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch. District Hazaribagh and the said amount was also withdrawn on the same day. Obviously, the fourth running accounts bill was prepared in the office of Area Civil Engineer. Bastacolla. BCCL and it was passed for Rs. 22,40,106.72. It is also admitted position that the said amount was credited in the account of the petitioner maintained at SBI, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch. District Hazaribagh and the said amount was also withdrawn on the same day. It is true that the amount was paid/adjusted by the petitioner with interest in between 16.8.1994 to 22.11.1994 but still a sum of Rs, 44.340/-is outstanding against the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the letter dated 28.2.2000 and submitted that the credit facility was already allowed to the petitioner by Vijaya Bank during the period under challenge and the entire amount was already paid by the petitioner with interest. The said position was also communicated through the said letter. But, it is also well settled that subsequent payment will not absolve the accused of liability of criminal offence. There was no reason to get the bill of Rs. 22,40.106.72 discounted in the Vijaya Bank under SBP/OD on 19.3.1994 and get the payment directly from BCCL instead of being paid to the Vijaya Bank. 11 is evident that the petitioner procured the cheque of the aforesaid amount from BCCL on 19.4.1994 authorising Sri R. S. Singh and on the basis of its own letter the cheque was procured on 20.4.1994 and get it deposited in the State Bank of India. Ramgarh and later on the entire amount was withdrawn. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had ever informed the Vijaya Bank that actually they had withdrawn the cheque from BCCL due to mistake. 11. Thus, the whole action, as it appears, cannot be said to be done by mistake/oversight as it was done within the due knowledge and acquaintance of consequences. It is true that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and criminal law should not be set into motion as a matter of course. But. it is also settled that if the allegations made in the fIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, this Court should be reluctant to interfere in the matter of cognizance. But. it is also settled that if the allegations made in the fIR are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, this Court should be reluctant to interfere in the matter of cognizance. This Court is not Justified, at this stage, in judging the probability, reliability and genuineness of the allegations made out in the FIR. In the case of Rajesh BajaJ v. State of NCT Delhi, (1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 (1) East Cr C 950 (SC), the Apex Court pointed out that merely because an act has a civil profile, is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would be 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 transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transaction. In the case of Trisuns Chemical Industry v Rajesh Agrawal and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686 , the Apex Court reiterated the same view by observing that criminal proceeding cannot be thwarted merely because civil proceedings are maintainable. 12. The Apex Court already observed in the case of Medchi Chemical & Pharmaceutlcals Pvt. Ltd., 2000 (2) East Cr C 524 (SC), (supra) that mere fact that the offence was committed during the course of business or money transaction by itself is not sufficient to quash the complaint. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true was to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led at the trial in the case. It has been repeatedly held in catena of decisions by the Apex Court that the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be exercised sparingly and cautiously. 13. In the case at hand, no doubt, the cheque of aforesaid money procured by the petitioner directly from BCCL and credited in its account at Ramgarh and also withdrawn the entire amount. Thus, the petitioner can- not escape from criminal liability even if the said amount was adjusted on different dates subsequently. 14. 13. In the case at hand, no doubt, the cheque of aforesaid money procured by the petitioner directly from BCCL and credited in its account at Ramgarh and also withdrawn the entire amount. Thus, the petitioner can- not escape from criminal liability even if the said amount was adjusted on different dates subsequently. 14. On careful reading of the FIR and charge-sheet, in my view, it cannot be said that the FIR and the charge-sheet do not disclose the commission of offence. The ingrcdients of offences cannot be said to be totally absent on the allegations made out in the FIR. 15. For the reasons above mentioned, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all these points before the court below at the appropriate stage of case. 16. Application dismissed.