S. L. KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE applicants have assailed by filing this revision against the order dated 8/05/2001 passed by 2nd ACJM, Indore in Criminal Case No. 680/2000, thereby dismissing the application under Ss. 204 and 245 (2), Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 5-10-2000 by the trial Court taking cognizance against the applicants for the offence punishable under S. 420, IPC. ( 2 ) THE impugned order filed along with the revision before this Court is Annexure P/10. Sucinctly the facts for disposal of this revision are as under : na No. 1/complainant filed a criminal complaint for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 417, 467, 471, IPC against the applicants alleging that the applicants and non-applicant No. 1 entered into an agreement for purchasing Shawel Machine Model No. 315, but did not supply the upright machine as per agreement and a defective machine was given to them. Non-applicant No. 1 had also not stood to the agreement for the purchase of repairing and maintenance of the machine (sic ). The non-applicant No. 1 had also alleged that he had paid Rs. 50,000/- towards price of the said machine on 2-4-1981 but the same has denied by the non-applicant No. 1, though the non-applicant No. 1 is possessing the receipt of the said amount duly received by the applicants. It is also contended in the complaint that, in fact, the applicants and non-applicant No. 1 entered into hire-purchase agreement but by playing fraud and misrepresentation, got signed by the non-applicant No. 1 on the hire-agreement, whereas his own document i. e. letter dated 21-4-81 addressed to the Superintending Engineer as well as to Telco Company showing that Showel Machine was sold to the non-applicant No. 1 under the hire-purchase agreement. After filing the complaint on the aforesaid facts, the matter was pending before the trial Court for police report. ( 3 ) THE police has registered the case vide Crime No. 136/84 under Sections 420, 417, 467, 471, IPC. Thereafter, closed the case saying that it was a matter of civil nature. The trial Court, after recording the statement of the complaint and perusing the document, took cognizance by order dated 5-10-2000 and issued process under S. 204, Cr. P. C. by issuing summons to the applicants for their appearance. Thereafter, closed the case saying that it was a matter of civil nature. The trial Court, after recording the statement of the complaint and perusing the document, took cognizance by order dated 5-10-2000 and issued process under S. 204, Cr. P. C. by issuing summons to the applicants for their appearance. The applicants appeared through their counsel and thereafter filed the application on 8-5-2001 under Ss. 204 and 245 (2), Cr. P. C. for challenging the order of cognizance/registration of the complaint and issuance of process by the trial Court on 5-10-2000. The applicants have submitted before the trial Court in their application as well as in oral argument that the complaint was filed with an oblique motive just to pressurize the applicants to accept the proposal made by the non-applicant No. 1 regarding dispute of amount as well as transaction which (is) of civil nature for which the non-applicant No. 1 has also filed a civil suit filed along with the revision as Annexure P/1 bearing Civil Suit No. 50-B/84 before the District Judge, Indore for the recovery of Rs. 4,07,660/ -. According to the applicants, on bare perusal of the complaint, no prima facie criminal case is made out as alleged for taking cognizance by the Court below. By their own showing the agreement was executed for taking Shawel Machine on hire and not under the hire purchase agreement. The agreement itself is showing this fact and the same has been signed by the non-applicant No. 1 who is a qualified person and knowing English language properly which is clear from the correspondence. The contention of the non-applicant No. 1 is not believable that the applicant No. 2 get signed the agreement of hire-purchase by playing fraud and cheating. ( 4 ) THE trial Court, after hearing the applicants and non-applicant No. 1 passed the impugned order Annexure P/10 in detail and rejected the application holding that prima facie case for taking cognizance was made out and the cognizance was taken rightly in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THIS Court is in complete agreement with the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Ss. 204, 245 (2), Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 5-10-2002. ( 5 ) THIS Court is in complete agreement with the order passed by the trial Court dismissing the application under Ss. 204, 245 (2), Cr. P. C. for setting aside the order dated 5-10-2002. Counsel for the applicants relied on a judgment in the case of Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, AIR 1988 SC 709 : (1988 Cri LJ 853 ). This judgment is not helpful to the applicants. There cannot be denial of law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment that the legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations, as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. In the present case, on the basis of uncontroverted allegation made by the complainant and the documents filed therein, is making out prima facie case for proceeding against the applicants. The applicant has denied the receipt of Rs. 50,000/- and by his own showing in the letter dated 21-4-81 addressed to the Superintending Engineer and Telco Company that they had given Shawel Machine under the hire-purchase agreement, whereas according to the applicant himself, he had given the machine under the hire-agreement. Now the controversy will be resolved during the course of the trial. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the applicants also placed reliance on a judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Umashankar Kothariwal, AIR 1981 SC 641 : (1981 Cri LJ 159) about the delay in the proceedings. In the present case, delay was occasioned by the complainant. The matter was pending for police report and thereafter for decision on the application filed by the complainant. This decision is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) IN Govind Das Biyani v. Badrinarayan Rathi, 1995 0 MPLJ 194 , this Court has held that when the dispute is of purely civil nature then the complainant in respect thereof amounts to abuse of process of law and the same can be interfered with under inherent powers envisaged under S. 482, Cr. ( 7 ) IN Govind Das Biyani v. Badrinarayan Rathi, 1995 0 MPLJ 194 , this Court has held that when the dispute is of purely civil nature then the complainant in respect thereof amounts to abuse of process of law and the same can be interfered with under inherent powers envisaged under S. 482, Cr. P. C. but in the present case the dispute is of civil as well as criminal nature and the complainant has applied before the Civil Court for damages and grant of recovery of money and also filed criminal complaint for the alleged criminal acts committed by the applicants. ( 8 ) THERE is no force in the contention of the applicants that full transaction was the money transaction and it was hire-purchase agreement. Therefore, the case is purely of civil nature. The question whether the transaction was hire-purchase transaction or hire of machine, is the question to be decided in the trial. Merely because the transaction was commercial or money transaction, element of cheating would not allude from such transaction. For one transaction, the applicant may be held responsible for civil as well as criminal liability. In the catena of judgments, the Apex Court has held so. Reliance can safely be placed on the judgment reported in 1999 0 Crlj 1833 (SC) (Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT Delhi; 2000 Cri LJ 1487 (SC) (Medchl Chemicals and Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Biological E. Ltd.); (2001) 1 MPWN SN 167 (Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) v. State of Bihar; (1999) 8 SCC 686 (Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and Meenakshi Sundaram Textile Ltd. v. Gokulchand Rakhabchand (MCrc No. 3651/2001 decided on 27-2-2002) : ( 2002 0 Crlj 4366 ) by this Court. In all these cases it has been held that criminal prosecution cannot be thwarted merely because civil proceedings are also maintainable or already filed. Aggrieved party can take recourse to both the proceedings. ( 9 ) IN the wake of the aforesaid factual and legal discussions, this Court is of the opinion that there is no merit and substance in this revision. Hence, this revision deserves the fate of dismissal. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.