Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure (for short "the Code"), for quashing the charges of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506-B of the IPC. The corresponding trial is pending as Criminal (Complaint) Case no. 171/01 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sagar. In that case, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506-B of the IPC was taken against the petitioners upon a charge-sheet submitted by SHO, P. S. Cantt. Sagar after due investigation into the complaint made by the respondent no. 2. However, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 23. 11. 2003, the CJM, Sagar came to the conclusion that there were sufficient grounds for presuming that the petitioners had committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 506-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. He, accordingly, proceeded to frame charges of these offences against them. ( 2. ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioners challenged legality and propriety of the order framing charges inter alia on the ground that the transaction in question gave rise to civil liability only. However, learned IVth ASJ, vide his order-dated 17. 03. 206 passed in Cr. Revison No. 61/06, observing that the charges were justified in the wake of petitioners refusal to refund the entrusted amount, declined to interfere. The petitioners have not invoked the inherent powers preserved in Section 482 of the Code for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against them on the following grounds : (i) The allegations made in the charge-sheet even if they were taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety would not constitute any criminal offence. (ii) The dispute with the complainant is purely of a civil nature and they have xcalready instituted a civil suit against her for recovery of an amount of rs. 13000/- as compensation. (iii) Investigating Officer, after initial investigation, had informed the S. P. , Sagar that the evidence was not sufficient for justifying even the arrest of the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/state as well as of the respondent no. 2/complainant have contended that, under the garb of the petition, under Section 482 of the Code, the petitioners have made an attempt to circumvent provisions of section 397 (3) thereof that bars second revision. However, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1/state as well as of the respondent no. 2/complainant have contended that, under the garb of the petition, under Section 482 of the Code, the petitioners have made an attempt to circumvent provisions of section 397 (3) thereof that bars second revision. According to them, even otherwise the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences charged with is well founded. ( 3. ) A bare perusal of the documents annexed to the petition would reveal that the case against the petitioners as well as coaccused namely R. A. Tiwari and Shiromani, who happened to be Jija (brother-in-law) and sister of the complainant/respondent no. 2 was registered on 20. 12. 2000 after a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made by her in the application submitted before the sho, P. S. Cantt. Sagar on 15. 11. 2000. These allegations may be summarized as under: "in the month of December, 1998, co-accused r. A. Tiwari along with his wife Shiromani came to her residence and informed that he was going to purchase a house worth Rs. 5 lacs from the petitioners, who were also instrumental in getting the bank loan sanctioned. Thereafter, by taking her to the plot, owned by petitioner no. 1, R. A. Tiwari not only persuaded her to purchase the house proposed to be constructed thereon but also introduced to the petitioners, who further assured that as against margin money of Rs. 25000/-, they would be able to facilitate disbursement of a house loan of Rs. 375000/-from the bank. Accordingly, on 02. 01. 1991, in the presence of R. A. Tiwari and shiromani, she handed over a cheque for an amount of rs. 25000/-to petitioner no. 2. However, on 04. 01. 1999, r. A. Tiwari, informing that the petitioner no. 2 had demanded an additional amount for enhancing the process of sanction and disbursement of loan, obtained another cheque for a sum of Rs. 25000/ -. Against this backdrop, in April 1999, she did not agree with the proposal communicated through R. A. Tiwari to get a sale-deed in respect of a plot executed in her favour as she was only interested in purchasing a house. In June, 1999, when R. A. Tiwari informed that the house loan could not be sanctioned by the bank, she demanded refund of the amount of Rs. 50000/-given to the petitioners as earnest money. Eventually, on 13. In June, 1999, when R. A. Tiwari informed that the house loan could not be sanctioned by the bank, she demanded refund of the amount of Rs. 50000/-given to the petitioners as earnest money. Eventually, on 13. 10. 2000, petitioner no. 1 called her on the pretext of refunding the amount but instead, made an attempt to persuade her to purchase a house of comparatively lower value. However, she insisted for return of the amount. Although, the petitioner no. 1 agreed to return the money by October, 2000 by depositing the same in her bank account yet, failed to do so. ( 4. ) REFUTING these allegations, the petitioners have narrated an altogether different story. According to them, -on 6/1/1999, the respondent no. 2 had entered into an agreement with petitioner no. 1, the son of petitioner no. 2, for getting a house constructed by jan, 2000, in a carpet area of 1100 square feet on a plot of land, bearing Khasra no. 244, situated in Mauja Badtuma and as per the terms of the agreement, an amount of Rs. 50000/-was paid by her as advance against the total consideration of Rs. 4 lacs to be paid in instalments at various stages of the proposed construction. However, she failed to fulfill her obligations under the agreement. After constructing the house as per agreement, the petitioner no. 2 repeatedly applied to the respondent no. 2 to perform the agreement on her part. Ultimately, after sending the notice, the petitioner instituted a civil suit on 16. 02. 2001 to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p. a. ( 5. ) THERE cannot be any conflict with the proposition that the same set of facts can give rise to civil as well as criminal liability but the relevant question for invoking the inherent powers of quashing the criminal proceedings would be as to whether any offence is made out from the allegations made in the charge-sheet. However, the fact remains that, in the case on hand, execution of the corresponding agreement, forming basis of the civil suit was nowhere admitted by the respondent no. 2. Therefore, the remedy under criminal law was not barred even if the allegations disclosed that civil remedy was also available to the respondent no. 2. For this, reference may be made to a decision of Apex Court in Indian oil Corpn. 2. Therefore, the remedy under criminal law was not barred even if the allegations disclosed that civil remedy was also available to the respondent no. 2. For this, reference may be made to a decision of Apex Court in Indian oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 . In that case, the well settled position of law on the point has been explained in the following words :- "a given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not". ( 6. ) IT is also well settled that even a strong suspicion leading to presumption as to possibility as against certainty makes out a case for framing of charge (State of A. P. vs. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004 SCC (Cri) 1805) referred to ). ( 7. ) AS pointed out already, the charges framed by learned magistrate have already been approved by the Court of Session in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. ( 8. ) THIS apart, the inherent powers, under Section 482 of the code, are to be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of Court but not to stifle a legitimate prosecution, when the issue involved, whether factual or legal can not be decided without sufficient material (Minu Kumari vs. State of Bihar (2006) 4 scc 359 referred to ). ( 9. ) IN this view of the matter, no interference with a legitimate prosecution is called for. ( 10. ) THE petition, therefore, stands dismissed.