D. P. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) IN the present application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceeding being Case No. C-236 of 1992 under section 406/407/411 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore. ( 2 ) ON the basis of a complaint filed by the present opposite party No. 1 the aforesaid proceeding was initiated. In the petition of complaint it was alleged that the accused persons contacted the complainant and requested him to let out to them 6 trailors on hire. The rate of hire charge was settled at 25,000/- per trailor per month and accordingly 6 trailors were let out to the accused persons on monthly hire basis. It was further alleged that the accused issued a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/- on 30. 6. 99 but the same was not enchased on presentation in the Bank. It was alleged that an amount of Rs. 14,80,000/- has fallen due from the accused persons, who refused to pay such amount. ( 3 ) ON the petition of complaint the learned S. D. J. M. Alipore took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore for disposal. The learned Magistrate thereafter examining the complainant and his witnesses issued process against the accused persons. ( 4 ) MR. Dutt, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that from the averments in the petition of complaint, it becomes clear that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the present prosecution is an abuse of the process of the Court. It is the further contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that the allegations made in the petition of complaint do not disclose any offence under the aforesaid sections. ( 5 ) MR. Sekhar Bose, learned Advocate appearing for the complainant/o. P. submits that the petition of complaint was filed in this case on 31. 1. 92. and process was issued on 1. 2. 92. Thereafter summons could not be served for a period of more than 18 months. Warrant of Arrest was issued on 14. 9. 93 which also could not be executed. Fresh W/a was again issued on 4. 7. 94 and the same could not be executed. So, the learned Magistrate had to issue fresh W/a again. 2. 92. Thereafter summons could not be served for a period of more than 18 months. Warrant of Arrest was issued on 14. 9. 93 which also could not be executed. Fresh W/a was again issued on 4. 7. 94 and the same could not be executed. So, the learned Magistrate had to issue fresh W/a again. In this way the petitioner is trying to drag the proceeding and frustrate the same. Mr. Bose further points out that proceeding in the Court below could not proceed as the same was stayed by this Court in 1995 at the time of admission of the present Revisional Application. ( 6 ) IT is submitted by Mr. Bose that simply because of the reason that a civil remedy is available to the complainant, the present proceeding cannot be quashed on this score alone. Mr. Bose relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble apex Court reported in 2001 0 AIR (SCW) 2504 (Lalmuni Devi v. State of Bihar ). In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that simply because a civil claim is maintainable, it does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained. ( 7 ) MR. Bose next relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 615 (Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and others ). In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble apex Court that to exercise powers under section 482 Cr. PC, the complaint in its entirety has to be examined. The High Court at that stage (sic) no authority or jurisdiction to go into the matter or examine its correctness. ( 8 ) I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties. I have also gone through the judgments referred to above. In view of the discussion made above, I find sufficient merit in the submission made by Mr. Bose, the learned Advocate of the complainant/o. P. In my considered view the allegations made in the petition of complaint clearly make out an offence under the aforesaid sections, which are sufficient for the purpose of proceeding further in this matter. In my view, this is not a fit case for quashing of the proceeding at this initial stage on the grounds as agitated by the petitioner in the present application. In my view, this is not a fit case for quashing of the proceeding at this initial stage on the grounds as agitated by the petitioner in the present application. ( 9 ) THE revisional application accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. ( 10 ) SINCE this a very old proceeding of 1992 and sufficient delay has been caused, for which the accused is only responsible, I direct the learned trial Magistrate to proceed with the trial and to conclude the same with utmost expedition, preferably within a period of six (6) months from the date of communication of the order. The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The order may be communicated to the Court below immediately. The lower Court records may be sent down to the Court below immediately. Application dismissed