JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge in this petition is the judgment and order dated 7.4.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Karimganj in Criminal Revision No. 49(3)/2008 thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 2.7.2008 passed by the learned Additional Cheif Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj in CR Case No. 1403/2008 thereby dismissing the complaint under Section203, Cr PC. 2. I have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. D. Borgohain, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiya, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The respondent/complainant filed a complaint case in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimaganj against the present petitioner which was registered as CR No. 1403/2008 under Section 406/420, IPC thereafter on receipt of the complaint, the learned Additional CJM took up the complaint for necessary disposal. The crux of the allegations made in the complaint inter alia are that the accused/petitioner is the Subject Teacher of Kushiankul H.S. School, Karimganj as well as Secretary of the steering committed constituted for the purpose of establishing a new college in the locality at Fakirabazar for imparting higher secondary course under the name and style of Fakirabazar Junior College, Karimganj and the same was established in the 2000. The complainant and the brother, on being asked by the people of the locality, donated a plot of land for establishment of the said Fakirabazar Junior College, Karimganj. The said gift was made by executing a registered deed of gift and the same was accepted by the accused petitioner and the same was registered in the name of the college mentioned above. For the purpose of construction of permanent building of the college over the said plot of land an amount of Rs. 13.00 lacs (Rupees Thirteen lacs) only was collected from the different sources. The public has also made generous contribution for establishment of the college but the accused petitioner being the Secretary of the said college by receiving the said amount of Rs. 13.00 lacs from different sources and Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) lacs only as public contribution started construction of personal building on his own land in stead of construction of the college building. Although the objection was raised from different quarters, the accused/petitioner avoided the same and continued to construct the building by the fund of the college. 13.00 lacs from different sources and Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs) lacs only as public contribution started construction of personal building on his own land in stead of construction of the college building. Although the objection was raised from different quarters, the accused/petitioner avoided the same and continued to construct the building by the fund of the college. It is further stated that the said building is a personal building and constructed from the fund of the college and mis-appropriated the said college fund and on such allegation it is contended that an offence under Section 406 / 420 has been committed and liable to be dealt with accordingly. 4. On receipt of the compliant, the learned Additional CJM, Karimganj examined the complainant under Section 402, Cr PC. That apart, from the complainant, the statement of the witnesses were also recorded by the learned trial Court as Court witness in exercise of its power under Section 402, Cr PC. Thereafter, vide order dated 2.7.2008, the learned trial Court considering the fact that there is a clause in the Gift Deed to the effect that if in future for some reason the college is closed or shifted to anywhere, the donor will get back their land and will be liable to possess the same as early as possible and dismissed the complaint holding that the learned trial Court do not find sufficient ground to proceed against the accused petitioner. The said order was carried over to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, FTC, Karimganj in revisional jurisdiction wherein it was registered as Criminal Revision No. 49(3)/2008. The revision petition being made over to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Karimganj for necessary disposal, both the parties were heard and vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.11.2008, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 2.7.2008 and remanded the matter back to the learned Additional CJM, Karimganj for necessary disposal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision has been filed by the accused petitioner. 5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Sr. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the present revision has been filed by the accused petitioner. 5. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms D. Borgohain, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner submits that prior filing of the complaint case, the petitioner as one of the complainant filed a Title Suit against the college on 19.5.2006 in the Court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj and the same was registered as TS No. 77/2008 and few days after the present complaint petition has been filed on the same facts. The allegation leveled in the complaint also being the subject-matter of suit, the present complaint petition itself is not maintainable. 6. Relying the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in AIR 1950 Gau 202 Hiralal Patni v. Chowthmal Sharma and Ors. it is contended by Sr. counsel that the parties should not be encouraged to resort to the Criminal Courts in cases in which the points at issue between them are such that they can more appropriately be decided by a Civil Court. The learned Counsel also taking aid of the decision reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. relying on paragraph 102 submits that applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, the present complaint is not maintainable. Final submission of the learned Sr. counsel is that the learned Sessions Judge ignoring the law as regards the maintainability of the complaint itself having passed the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court. 7. Per contra, Mr. Rajborbhuiyan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the civil suit and the complaint case is totally different and the petitioner having been prima facie established the commission of offence under Section 406 / 420, IPC the learned trial Court legally dismissed the complaint by the complainant filed by the complainant which was revised by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Karimganj applying the principle of law covering the subject-matter in dispute. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties received due attention by the Court. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties received due attention by the Court. 8. A perusal of the complaint petition it discloses that specific averments have been made in the complaint petition itself to the effect that the accused besides being the Subject Teacher of the said school is also performing the function of the secretory of the Fakirabazar Junior College as well as Principal of the same college and being the secretary of the said college, the accused received an amount of Rs. 13.00 lacs as well as Rs. 3.00 lacs as public donation as indicated above and started construction of building in his own plot of land in stead of specified place allotted for college. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused committed such act illegally and for wrongful gain for his personal interest with a view to grab the fund of the college including the donated land. The complainant in his initial deposition recorded by the learned trial Court supported the statement made in the complaint wherein it is clearly stated that the accused without constructing any building over the land of the college, constructing his own RCC building in his village at about 1 KM distance from the college. It is further alleged that the accused has mis-appropriated the Government fund. In the complaint dated 26.5.2008 it is stated that the accused is constructing his building over his own land. CW-1, 2, 3 and 4 examined by the Court in exercise of its power under Section 200, Cr PC has also corroborated the said facts as stated by the complainant in his initial deposition to the effect that the accused has mis-appropriated the college fund and has constructed his own building over his own land without constructing the college building. The learned Additional CJM dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr PC referring the Clause in the Gift Deed to the effect that in the event of not constructing any college building or over the donated plot or if the college is closed or shifted to some other place, the donor will get back their land. The learned Additional CJM dismissed the complaint under Section 203, Cr PC referring the Clause in the Gift Deed to the effect that in the event of not constructing any college building or over the donated plot or if the college is closed or shifted to some other place, the donor will get back their land. The learned Additional CJM in exercise of his jurisdiction upon considering the statements made in the complaint as well as in the initial deposition of the complainant and the statement of the witnesses and without discussing the evidence of the complainant recorded under Section 200 / 203, Cr PC, dismissed the complaint holding that no ground is available to proceed against the accused. On such consideration, the learned revisional Court interfered with the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the learned trial Court with further direction that the complainant should bring the witnesses upon him he relies to establish the case on trial for examining under Section 203, Cr PC and to pass appropriate order. Upon consideration of the statement of such witnesses as may be produced by the complainant. 9. Upon filing of a complaint, the learned Magistrate is competent to entertain the same to examine the complainant and other witnesses present on oath, if any. Under Section 200, Cr PC the learned Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, and the substance of such examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses, and also by the Court. Under Section 202 a Magistrate is empowered to take cognizance of a case if he thinks fit postpone the issue of process against the accused, and either inquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit for the purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. In exercise of this power under Section 202, the learned Additional CJM examined the other four witnesses in the instant case. In exercise of this power under Section 202, the learned Additional CJM examined the other four witnesses in the instant case. If after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and other witnesses and after the result of the inquiry of the investigation, if any made under Section 202, Cr PC the learned Magistrate is entitled to dismiss the complaint if he finds no sufficient ground for proceeding but the learned Magistrate is required to record his reason for such dismissal. In the instant case the reasons recorded by the learned Magistrate is the condition as incorporated in the complaint but the learned Magistrate failed to consider the scope and fact of the statements made by the complainant and other witnesses on oath who are examined by the Court. In exercise of power under Section 202, Cr PC. Such consideration is mandatory requirement to be undertaken by the learned Magistrate. A perusal of the statements of the witnesses and the complainant clearly discloses that the complainant has been able to make a prima facie case against the accused. 10. It is true that complainant prior to filing of the complaint case, instituted a Title Suit No. 77/2008 in the Court of learned Munsiff, Karimganj but the relief sought for in the said suit was for declaration and injunction. On the other hand, the hole purpose and filing the complaint case is entirely different. By now it has been settled that pendency of the civil suit shall not be a bar for permitting to proceed with the criminal case even if the criminal case is made against the person. Reference, 2002 (1) SCC 555 Kamala Devi Agarwalla v. State of West Bengal, 2002 (9) SCC 581 Vitoori Pradeep Kumar v. Kaisula Dharmaiah and Ors., 1985 (2) SCC 370 Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and Anr. The observation recorded in the decision of Hiralal, (supra) or Division Bench of this Court will not help the petitioner in the instant case. There is no dispute to the observation made in Hiralal, (supra) but it cannot be said that the issue involved in the complaint can be decided by the Civil Court. 11. The principle of law laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) as relied on by the learned Sr. counsel in fact goes against his favour. There is no dispute to the observation made in Hiralal, (supra) but it cannot be said that the issue involved in the complaint can be decided by the Civil Court. 11. The principle of law laid down in the case of Bhajanlal (supra) as relied on by the learned Sr. counsel in fact goes against his favour. In Bhajanlal's case (supra) the Apex Court laid down certain criteria under which the inherent power of the Court can be exercised for quashing a criminal proceeding and at paragraph 103, the Apex Court held as follows: 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of case by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafied and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases, that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice. 12. Applying the first principle laid down in Bhajanlal's case (supra) to the appellant and accepting the allegation made in the complaint by the complainant and his initial statements recorded under Section200 and the Statement of the four witnesses recorded under Section 202, Cr PC by the "Additional CJM clearly go to show that the complainant has been able to make out prima facie case to go for trial and the learned Additional CJM committed illegality in dismissing the complaint under Section203, Cr PC which however was rightly interfered with by the learned revisional Court. But the revisional Court has further directed the learned Court to ask the complainant to produce his other witnesses for examination under Section 202, Cr PC admittedly for consideration of taking cognizance of the case. That apart, the order is not sustainable in law inasmuch as the materials as indicated above i.e., the statements of complainant and admission on oath and the allegation made in the complainant petition clearly disclose a prima facie case against the accused/petitioner to go for trial. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate shall pass a formal order of taking cognizance and proceed with the case accordingly. That part of the order of the revisional Court, indicated above, stands quashed. 13. Both the parties have agreed to appear before the learned Additional CJM, Karimganj on 22.6.2009, accordingly they shall appear on that date. 14. Registry is directed to transmit the LCRs forthwith. 15. No cost.