Naheed Ara Moonis, J.;— Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA and have been taken through the record. 2. The instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 505 of 2012 (M/s S.K.Jain & Co. Vs. Smt. Rachana Jain and another) initiated pursuant to the summoning order dated 9.4.2012 passed by the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut whereby the appplicants have been summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under sections 420/120B IPC Police station Nauchandi District Meerut. 3. The genesis of the fact emanating from the prosecution in a short compass is that M/s S.K. Jain & Co. (opposite party no.2) entered into agreement with the applicants in respect of buying and selling of shares on 2.8.2007. The applicants were well familiar to the opposite party no.2 who had persuaded the opposite party no.2 to enter and run the business with them. They will earn the share and will distribute the earned money of share amongst themselves in a month.The applicants and the opposite party no.2 were engaged in the business of purchase and selling of shares from 2.8.2007 to 12.5.2011. The applicants stopped to run the business of shares with the opposite party no.2 and when the opposite party no.2 asked for due amount to the tune of Rs. 9,42,187.16,the applicants assured the opposite party no.2 to make payment of the said amount within one month. The applicants despite giving full assurance did not make payment of aforesaid due amount within the stipulated period. The complainant met to the applicants time and again in relation to payment of due amount,the applicants adopted dilatory and stalling tactics so as to avoid the payment to the opposite party no.2 on either pretext instilling a wrong confident of making the payment very soon. From the conduct of the applicants, it is evident that the applicants have formed strong will of usurping the money of the complainant by adopting deceitful and dishonest device with an oblique motive of causing loss to him and earning undue gain for themselves. The opposite party no.2 is well familiar about the conduct of the applicants that they will not adhere on their assurances. After lapse of some time, the opposite party no.2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (IV) Meerut. The opposite party no.2 is well familiar about the conduct of the applicants that they will not adhere on their assurances. After lapse of some time, the opposite party no.2 moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (IV) Meerut. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the witnesses under section 202 Cr.P.C.and also examining the documentary evidence found prima facie offence to summon the applicants to face the trial under section 420/120B IPC vide order dated 9.4.2012. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that there is no essential ingredients of section 420/120B IPC in the present case. From the bald perusal of the complainant, it transpired that it is a case of breach of trust which is a dispute in civil nature. The complaint was filed with an oblique motive of harassing the applicants. The opposite party no.2 filed the complaint against the applicants as a counter blast since the applicants have already moved an application against the opposite party no.2 under section 323/504/506/452/392/427 IPC before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Meerut on 30.3.2012 to register the first information report against the opposite party no.2 as he had entered into agreement with the applicants and used abusive and vituperative languages.They had also entered in the house of the complainant (now applicant) in the presence of his wife,children and the mother and scattered the household goods. They had also forcibly taken away the idol of Natraj coated with silver plating unleashing a reign of terror. Anterior to that, notice was sent by the applicants on 27.3.2012 to the opposite party no.2 to make payment of invested amount of Rs. 5.5 lacs. As a retaliatory measure, the opposite party no.2 lodged the first information report under sections 420/120B IPC summoning the applicants. The criminal proceedings initiated by the opposite party no.2 in relation to breach of contract is nothing but sheer abuse of the process of law therefore, inherent power of this Court conferred under section 482 Cr.P.C has been invoked so that the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants may be quashed. The applicants are respectable members of the society and have committed no offence as alleged in the complaint. The applicants are respectable members of the society and have committed no offence as alleged in the complaint. The Apex Court in a catena of decision has quashed the proceedings where there is breach of contract holding that such disputes are purely civil in nature which can be decided on the basis of probabilities therefore, the cognizance thereof would amount to clear misuse of the power of Court culminating into grave injustice. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are delineated as under :- 1. Eicher Tractor Ltd. Vs. Harihar 2008 (SC) (11) 104, 2. Ram Biraji Devi & another Vs. Umesh Kuamr Singh & another 2006(55)ACC, 560. 3. Sharon Michael Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (SC) 12, (127) 4. V.Y.Jose & another Vs. State of Gujarat & another 2009 (65) ACC 572. 5. Dilip Kumar & others Vs. Jagnar Singh & another 2009 (66) ACC 734 6. M/s Thermax Ltd. & others Vs. K.M. Johny 2012 (76) ACC 774. 5. Per contra learned AGA contended that the court below has committed no error in taking cognizance. The bald perusal of the contents of the first information report prima facie makes out case 420/120B IPC. The decisions relied by the learned counsel for the applicant are based on different set of facts and circumstances of the case which has no applicability with the present case. The whole gamut of investigation was exercised by the investigating agency who had found material evidence showing complicity of the applicant. Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. This Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence collected during investigation is reliable or not. It is absolute function of the trial Magistrate to examine as to whether the dispute is of a civil nature or it constitutes a criminal offence on the basis of allegations made in the complaint. There is no clear cut and well demarcated line on the basis of which allegations made in the complaint may be throttled treating the dispute of civil nature. The criminal prosecution cannot be stifled at the very outset,merely because there is some elements of dispute of civil nature. There is no clear cut and well demarcated line on the basis of which allegations made in the complaint may be throttled treating the dispute of civil nature. The criminal prosecution cannot be stifled at the very outset,merely because there is some elements of dispute of civil nature. In the cases of forgery and fraud there is some element of civil dispute which requires investigation so as to reach a definite conclusion of determining the probity of the case. It has been held in a catena of decisions pronounced by Apex Court that if there is an essence of mens rea in the complaint constituting an offence, the civil and criminal proceedings can go together. In P. Swaroopa Rani Vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu AIR 2008 S.C.1984 wherein criminal proceedings were initiated for the commission of forgery and the Apex Court observed that civil proceedings & criminal proceedings can go simultaneously which depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The filing of a criminal proceeding is not barred under any statute. Learned counsel for the has further placed reliance upon M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh & another 2001(43)ACC 967 in that case, the Magistrate had taken cognizance and proceeded against the accused persons. The opposite party approached the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. The High Court quashed the proceedings in view of the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties where genuineness of the document was in dispute. No criminal proceedings can be initiated against the aggrieved persons. The complainant approached the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that it cannot be said that complaint filed by the appellant did not disclose commission of any offence which can be made basis for quashing the proceedings. The allegations made in the complaint require adjudication and the complaint could not be aborted in the manner which was done by the High Court. The Apex Court upheld the order of the Magistrate and set aside the judgment passed by the High court directing the trial court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Further learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court pronounced in the matter Kamla Devi Agarwal Vs. The Apex Court upheld the order of the Magistrate and set aside the judgment passed by the High court directing the trial court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. Further learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court pronounced in the matter Kamla Devi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal and others 2001 (43) A.C.C. 1106 where same question had arisen before the Apex Court. The Apex Court held that the criminal cases have to be proceeded in accordance with procedure as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into account proposition of law that inherent powers for quashing the proceedings at the initial stage can be exercised only where the allegations made in the complaint or the first information report even if taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or where the uncontroverted allegations made in the first information report or complaint and the evidence relied in support of the same do not disclose commission of any offence against the accused. The controversy in respect of the monetary dispute is a disputed question of fact which can not be made basis for quashing the proceedings in exercise of inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. The standard of proof in two proceedings are different, the civil proceedings can be decided on the basis of probabilities, while the criminal cases has to be decided by adopting standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Both proceedings may run simultaneously. At this stage only a prima case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Versus State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 , State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal 1992 SCC (Cr.)426,. disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. At this stage it cannot be said from the bare perusal of the first information report that no offence is made out against the applicants. Now after investigation the charge sheet was submitted by the investigating officer against the applicants. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise objection before the court below at the appropriate stage. At this stage it cannot be said from the bare perusal of the first information report that no offence is made out against the applicants. Now after investigation the charge sheet was submitted by the investigating officer against the applicants. The applicants have ample opportunity to raise objection before the court below at the appropriate stage. This court cannot quash the criminal proceedings at the very threshold as the quashing of proceeding is an exception that a rule and the instant case is not one of those rarest of rare case to thwart the legitimate prosecution at its inception. 7. Resultantly, this application fails and is accordingly dismissed.. _____________