Judgment : Fifteen applications for anticipatory bail have been filed by the petitioner, who is the first accused in fifteen crimes, registered by the Vedakkekad Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In most of the cases, the wife of the petitioners is also one of the accused persons, while in certain other cases, the Headmaster of the school managed by the petitioner is an accused. 2. All these cases against the petitioner were initiated on the basis of complaints filed by the respective de facto complainants before the Magistrate's Court. Those complaints were forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crimes were registered against the petitioner and the other accused. 3. The gist of the allegations levelled against the petitioner is the following: The petitioner is the Manager of Thiruvalayannoor High School, Vadakkekad in Chavakkad Taluk, Thrissur District. He made advertisements in leading Malayalam dailies stating that several vacancies of teachers exist in the school and invited applications from eligible candidates. The petitioner collected huge amounts from the respective de facto complainants, ranging from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.8 Lakhs, on the assurances that they would be appointed as teachers. It is alleged that at the time when the advertisements were made and the promise was made after receiving huge amounts that the de facto complainants would be appointed as teachers, the petitioner very well know that such vacancies did not exist in the schools. It is alleged in some of the complaints that the petitioner has defrauded about fifty persons in a similar manner and has collected crores of rupees. 4. In these bail applications, the petitioner has prayed for granting anticipatory bail. He states that he is the Manager of eight schools at different places. It is submitted by Sri. Jijo Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the de facto complaints have filed suits before the civil court for realization of the amounts due to them. The learned counsel contends that therefore there is no justification for initiating criminal action against the petitioner. At best, the learned counsel contends, the liability of the petitioner is a civil liability. Jijo Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the de facto complaints have filed suits before the civil court for realization of the amounts due to them. The learned counsel contends that therefore there is no justification for initiating criminal action against the petitioner. At best, the learned counsel contends, the liability of the petitioner is a civil liability. The learned counsel also submitted that even if the allegations are taken as true, that would indicate that the de facto complainants are also guilty of certain offences. The further contention of the petitioner is that he is suffering from liver cirrhosis and he is under treatment of the Amrita Institute of Medical sciences, Edappally. If he is arrested, there is every likelihood of the being harassed and humiliated, which, according to the learned counsel, would aggravate the illness of the petitioner. 5. The bail applications are seriously opposed by the learned Public Prosecutors, M/s. K.S. Sivakumar and M.S. Breez. They submitted that filling of civil suits by the de facto complainants would not debar them from putting the criminal law in motion. Learned Public Prosecutors also submitted that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the proper investigation of the case. They also stated that the illness, if any, of the petitioner will be taken care of in the event of his arrest. The apprehension of the petitioner that he will be harassed, humiliated and manhandled by the police is without any substance, submits the learned Public Prosecutors. 6. I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner that the de facto complainants are not entitled to put the criminal law in motion, since they have filed civil suits against the petitioner. The two remedies are concurrent. A particular act may give rise to a cause of action for a civil suit and at the same time, the same act may also constitute a criminal offences. In a case where an offence is also made out by the impugned act, nothing prevents the aggrieved person from resorting to civil remedy and at the same time from initiating criminal proceedings. If one were to wait till the culmination of the criminal proceedings, by that time, the period of limitation for filing the civil suit would be over. In a case where an offence is also made out by the impugned act, nothing prevents the aggrieved person from resorting to civil remedy and at the same time from initiating criminal proceedings. If one were to wait till the culmination of the criminal proceedings, by that time, the period of limitation for filing the civil suit would be over. Even if the civil suit is filed earlier in point of time, that will not be a ground to say that the criminal proceeding is not maintainable. It is also not necessary to wait for a decision of the civil court in order to take necessary proceedings under the criminal law. If one were to wait till the disposal of the civil suit, some times, the bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C would be attracted, depending upon the nature of the offence and the punishment provided therefore. It is true that in the present case Section 468 Cr.P.C would not apply. But, that is not a conclusive test for the purpose of deciding the question whether a criminal action can be initiated pending a civil suit. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the factum of filing of the civil suits is an adequate ground for granting anticipatory bail, is also without any substance. Whether or not the aggrieved person has approached the civil court, that by itself is not a ground for the accused to contend that he is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. The filing of the civil suit is not a decisive ground while considering the application for anticipatory bail although nothing prevents the court from taking into accounts the fact that the aggrieved party has filed a suit. In the case on hand, the aggrieved persons have filed civil suits for realization of the amount due to them. Had they not initiated civil proceedings, by the time the criminal proceedings are over, sometimes they would be precluded from filing suits as the suits would be barred by limitation. The pendency of suits filed by the de facto complainants cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner, who is not otherwise entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The pendency of suits filed by the de facto complainants cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner, who is not otherwise entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner that because he has illness, he is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. The submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor are well-founded. I also record the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutors that in case the petitioner is arrested, the investigating officer will take into account the illness of the petitioner and will do the needful. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that these applications for anticipatory bail are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed.