K. RAMANNA, J. ( 1 ) AN unsuccessful petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr. P. C. against the order dated 20-1-2001 passed by the IV additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C. C. No. 8001 of 1998 whereby, the Trial Court dismissed the application filed by this revision petitioner/accused under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. and held that there are sufficient materials to frame the charge against him for an offence under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The main ground urged by the revision petitioner/accused is that even though the complainant has not produced any material to disclose the prima facie case, dismissed his application and framed the charge against him for the aforesaid offence which is contrary to law. The complainant ought to have been proceeded against him by filing a civil suit for recovery of the amount. The transactions entered into between the revision petitioner and the complainant is purely civil in nature and therefore, the allegation made in the complaint does not constitute the ingredients of Sections 407 and 420 of the IPC. In fact, the jurisdictional police i. e. , Indiranagar Police rejected the complaint of this respondent by holding that matter is of civil in nature. Hence, this revision petition. ( 2 ) HEARD, the arguments of both sides and perused the records. ( 3 ) THE respondent-Cubbon Park Police Station registered the case against this revision petitioner for an offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that after refusal to register the complaint by the Indiranagar Police, respondent filed a private complaint against him for alleged offences. Accordingly, the said complaint came to be referred to the Cubbon Park Police, Bangalore, and after investigation, the Cubbon Park Police filed a charge-sheet against him. Therefore, when once the jurisdictional police refused to register the case, then the question of entertaining a private complaint filed by the respondent does not arise, and investigation done by the Cubbon Park Police is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court has not properly gone through the records to find out whether there is any primafacie case made out to frame the charge. The Trial Court has not properly gone through the records to find out whether there is any primafacie case made out to frame the charge. Further, it is submitted that in the instant case, the transaction entered into between them is purely a civil in nature and therefore the order under revision is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) IN support of this contention, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on a Supreme Court judgment in Alpic Finance Limitedv P. Sodasivan and Another , wherein it has been held that "quashing of criminal proceedings Merely because remedy by way of civil suit is available is not an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence alleged in transaction involving passing of valuable properties between the parties, the aggrieved party may sue for damages and also file a complaint against the wrongdoer for criminal breach of trust or cheating But the complaint must disclose essential ingredients of the offence Default made by respondents in payment of instalments by way of repayment of loan advanced by appellant under a lease agreement between the parties for purchase of some article Complaint field by appellant alleging commission of offence under Section 420 of the 1 PC by respondents Held on facts complaint does not disclose element of deception or fraud or dishonest inducement or wilful misrepresentation in the entire transaction Hence complaint, on facts, was liable to be quashed". In the aforesaid decision the Apex Court has come to a conclusion that remedy available to the aggrieved party to file a civil suit is not an impediment in maintaining a criminal complaint provided the complaint discloses the ingredient of the offence. Whereas, in the instant case, specific case of the respondent-complainant is that two hundies, bills, bank statement and other documents produced by the respondent-complainant clearly goes to show that there are sufficient materials to frame the charges against him. It is for the respondent-complainant to prove the allegation made in the complaint beyond reasonable doubt. When there is a prima facie case to connect this revision petitioner with a crime, then he is not entitled for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. When there is a prima facie case to connect this revision petitioner with a crime, then he is not entitled for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr. P. C. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. That apart, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on another decision in m/'s. Sharada Properties, Bangalore and Others v Dr. Nirmal Kumar Misra and Another, wherein this Court has held that"quashing the proceedings before the Magistrate held that "on a careful perusal of the complaint filed by the respondents have nowhere alleged that at the time when they entered into an agreement dated 13-5-1997 with petitioners for construction of a flat in the second floor of their site bearing No. 15, Katha No. 497/2, G. Palya. K. R. Puram Hobli, the petitioners entertained an intention to cheat them and thus induced them to enter into the said agreement. It is also not alleged in the said complaint that even at the time when the complainants paid a part of the sale consideration amount of Rs. 5,05,001-00, the petitioners entertained an intention to cheat them and thus induced them to part with the said portion of the consideration amount"". In the aforesaid cases, the parties have entered into an agreement with the builder for purchase of undivided 1/11th share in the land in construction of the land thereon by him. In fact, after making the payment, there was a breach of an agreement by the builder and he demanded an additional sum which was not covered by the agreement. Therefore, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate for an offence under Sections 407 and 420 of the Cr. P. C. and a private complaint was filed against the builder but the investigating agency filed a 'b' report. The complainant has challenged the 'b' report. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand. P. C. and a private complaint was filed against the builder but the investigating agency filed a 'b' report. The complainant has challenged the 'b' report. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the instant case, private complaint filed by the revision petitioner has been referred to the cubbon Park Police and after investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against the revision petitioner therefore, it could be said that there is a prima facie case and the ratio laid down by this Court is not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner also relied on another decision in India Brewery and Distillery Limited, bangalore and Others v Shaw Wallace and Company Limited, Bangalore, wherein it has been held that"quashing of criminal proceedings complaint filed against petitioners accused alleging offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust Allegations in complaint that accused misappropriated amount given by complainant for specific purpose, viz. , to pay sales tax Evidence showing that amount paid by complainant in advance to accused as a dealer to facilitate him to make payment of sale tax no requisite mens rea and dishonest intention to constitute alleged offence nor presence of essential ingredient 'entrustment' for alleged offences allegations in complaint not making out prima facie case of alleged offence Criminal proceedings quashed". Whereas, in the instant case, respondent is yet to prove the allegations made against the revision petitioner. Therefore, 1 do not find any good reasons to interfere with the order under challenge. In fact, the bank statements and hundies produced by the respondent indicates that there is a prima facie case to proceed against the revision petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities or illegal findings recorded by the trial Court and the same does not call for any interference and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) THE revision petition is accordingly dismissed. --- *** --- .