Judgment : This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertains to G.R. Case No.2183 of 2006 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, North 24- Paraganas arising out of Airport Police Station Case No.141 dated 17.8.2006 under Sections 420/120B/506/427 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2 and 3 in the case referred to above and prayed for quashing of the proceeding mainly on the ground that no case is made out under any of the sections as they had no criminal intention of cheating. A short reference to the factual aspect of the case is required to be given for proper appreciation of the matter. M/s. UNIC Steel Art lodged one petition of complaint in the Court of the learned Magistrate and prayed for referring the same under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the concerned police station for treating the same as F.I.R. and start investigation. That was done. In that F.I.R., it was alleged that UNIC Steel Art is a propriety business owned by the complainant Mun Mun Chowdhury. Being the proprietress of the said business, she came in touch of the petitioners and another Tapan Paul who together induced her to place some orders on 31.12.2005 for supplying raw materials of flash doors worth Rs.1,01,745/-including 12.5% taxes thereon. She was also induced to pay advance of Rs.7,180/-to the accused No.1 on that particular date. The accused maintaining business relation between themselves and received Rs.65,000/- jointly from the complainant Mun Mun Chowdhury, the proprietors of the UNIC Steel Art through different cheques. Thereafter, they refused to supply the articles on various pretext and ultimately, deceived the complainant. The complainant had to file the F.I.R. The matter was investigated into by the concerned police station and the charge sheet has been filed under Sections 420/120B/506/427 of the I.P.C. against all the three accused persons. These two petitioners filed one criminal revision application before this Court earlier being C.R.R.4327 of 2006 which was dismissed and disposed of on 25.6.2007 by this Court with an observation that prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. This Court also given liberty to the petitioners to agitate the points raised in the revision at the appropriate stage of the trial before the learned Trial Court. Mr. This Court also given liberty to the petitioners to agitate the points raised in the revision at the appropriate stage of the trial before the learned Trial Court. Mr. Sanjoy Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that no case is made out against these two petitioners. Neither the F.I.R. nor the materials collected by the I.O. in course of investigation suggests that the petitioners had any intention to deceive or cheat the defacto complainant in any manner. The point was agitated before the Court but the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.6.2008 rejected their prayer for discharge. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that this is a civil dispute pure and simple and that is why the prosecution should not lie against his clients. In support of this contention, he has referred to the following decisions; 1) Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2000 SCC (Cri) 786; 2) S. W. Palanitkar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 129; 3) Alpic Finance Ltd. Vs. Sadasivan & Anr., reported in JT 2001 (2) SC 588 4) Uma Shankar Gopalika Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 49; 5) Kingshuk Neogi Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in (2008) 1 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 789; 6) Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. M/s. Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2001 C. Cr. LR (Cal) 106; 7) Laxminarayana & Ors. Vs. North East Securities Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 335; 8) Devendra & Ors. Vs. State of U. P. & Anr., reported in JT 2009 (8) SC 120. Mr. Swapan Kr. Mallick, learned Counsel appearing for the State of West Bengal contends that the learned Trial Court rejected the prayer only because of the earlier view taken by this Court in C. R. R. 4327 of 2006. The points were agitated before the Court and after taking that points raised before it, the learned Court passed the order which is suffering from no infirmity and incorrectness. Mr. The points were agitated before the Court and after taking that points raised before it, the learned Court passed the order which is suffering from no infirmity and incorrectness. Mr. Debabrata Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the private opposite party contends that there are sufficient materials in the charge sheet showing that a prima facie case is made out against these two petitioners and in that case, this Court should not quash the proceeding in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalmuni Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 17 and the decision of Gauhati High Court in T. S. Rajamoni Vs. Randip Barua, reported in 2001 Crl. L. J. 4144. Perused the order passed by this Court in C.R.R.4327 of 2006. Perused the F.I.R. as well as the charge sheet and statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in course of investigation, seizure list and other documents made as annexures to the petition. The High Court is entrusted with plenary power to quash criminal proceedings pending in inferior courts where: (1) it appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance of criminal proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases under this category; (2) the allegations in the F.I.R. or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; in such cases no question of appreciating of evidence arises. It is a matter merely looking at the complaint or the F.I.R. to decide whether the offence alleged disclosed or not; (3) the allegations made against the accused person do constitute an offence alleged but there is either no legal evidence adduced clearly or manifestly which fails to prove the charge. In dealing with the class of cases of this description it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or whether there is evidence which is manifestly or clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising the discretion to quash criminal proceedings pending in subordinate courts, the High Court would not embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. A careful perusal of the materials placed before the learned Trial Court, i.e., F.I.R., charge sheet and the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure together with the seizure list, together makes it abundantly clear that there is prima facie materials against the petitioners in support of the fact that they together with the accused No.1 induced the defacto complainant to place order and money in advance which they shared amongst themselves but ultimately from the very beginning refused to carry on their part in the transaction. Whether they had any intention to deceive or not at the time they induced her, is a question of fact cannot be decided at this stage but in course of trial. Therefore, I find that this is not a case where no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and for that reason, the prosecution is to be quashed. The decision in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. (Supra), is distinguishable in this case wherein cheques were issued in favour of appellants were dishonoured because of insufficiency of amount. For that, it could not be said that the accused who issued the cheque had any intention to cheat. The decision in S. W. Palanitkar & Ors. (Supra), no prima facie case was made out in the F.I.R. against the appellants before the Apex Court. Because no property was entrusted to them by the defacto complainant. In the instant case, money was paid in advance by the petitioners misappropriated. Prima facie, the petitioners and the accused No.1 had intention not to carry on the transaction but to collect the money and thereby to deceive her. The factual aspect in S. W. Palanitkar & Ors. (Supra) as well as Alpic Finance Ltd. (Supra) are different than that of this case. In Uma Shankar Gopalika (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court found that the dispute was purely civil in nature and allowing investigation to continue would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In that case, a truck was subject matter of dispute which could not be traced out. A portion of the insurance claim was refused to be paid. That is not the case before us. In that case, a truck was subject matter of dispute which could not be traced out. A portion of the insurance claim was refused to be paid. That is not the case before us. In Kingshuk Neogi (Supra), some amount was due from the company. One of the Director, i.e., the petitioner was made an accused for non-payment of dues. This Court rightly came to a conclusion that no case of cheating was made out and it was a dispute of civil nature simplicitor. The factual aspect of that case and that of this case is quite different. The principles laid down in the other decisions referred to by Mr. Sanjoy Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is not disputable. From the discussions above, I find that a strong prima facie case against the petitioners have been made out. It is settled principle of law that merely because an act has a civil profile that does not denude it of its criminal outfit unless the allegations fall short in making out a criminal case. No criminal prosecution can be thwarted at the initial stage merely because it has civil profile. Taking everything in consideration and the fact that this Court even before filing of charge sheet could find prima facie case against the petitioners which has been confirmed after filing of charge sheet, I find that this is not a proper case where the proceeding in question is to be quashed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, I reject the prayer of the petitioners and the criminal revisional application fails. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates of the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.