1. The respondent filed complaint under Sections 418,420,120B-34 RFC before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, which was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kathua. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.05.2011 directed for issuance of process against the petitioners and further directed service of summons through concerned Police Station. In this petition it is prayed that order dated 07.05.2011 be quashed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of the complaint, it does not appear that the petitioners have committed any offence. Learned counsel submitted that learned Trial Magistrate in the facts and circumstances of the case should not have issued the process against the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that taking cognizance of offence and proceeding with the complaint by the trial court is abuse of process of Court. Learned counsel submitted that averments made in the complaint and allegations contained therein do not show that any offence is made out against the petitioners' much less, offence under Sections 420/34 RPC. Learned counsel referred to the Judgment reported in 2009 (2) JKJ 794 (HC) titled, Prashant Dingra v. Chenab Textiles Mills and anr, 2009 (3) JKJ 194 (HC), titled, S. Sunder Singh and anr. v. Videocon Industries ltd and also to the judgment reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3499, titled, Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and ors. and prayed for allowing the petition. 3. Mr. D. S. Thakur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the allegations made in the complaint do disclose the commission of offence under Sections 420/34 RFC. Learned counsel, while referring to paragraph 3 of the complaint, submitted that it has been specifically alleged that the accused with common, criminal dishonest and fraudulent intention induced the complainant at Kathua (J&K), in the Month of July/August, 2010 to sell the yarn to them on credit basis and the accused represented and promised to pay the price of the same on the terms as agreed by the accused. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, it is alleged that complainant fell prey to the misrepresentation and inducement of accused persons and supplied the yarn from Kathua, details whereof are given in the said paragraph of the complaint. In paragraph 4 of the complaint, it is alleged that complainant fell prey to the misrepresentation and inducement of accused persons and supplied the yarn from Kathua, details whereof are given in the said paragraph of the complaint. Learned counsel submitted that even though the transactions made appear to be civil in nature, but it has criminal complexion as well, which thus would permit the court of competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences and to issue process. Learned counsel further submitted that powers under Section 561-A Cr. PC are to be exercised in rarest of rare cases. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the learned trial Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the material available on record and thereafter passed the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and as such, order impugned cannot be quashed. Learned counsel invited the intention of the court to the Judgment reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 1889. Learned counsel while referring to paragraphs 14,15 and 17 of the said judgment submitted that in view of the law laid down, this petition deserves to be dismissed. The dealings and transactions between the human being give rise to different types of disputes, which may be of civil as well as of criminal nature. Some transactions simultaneously give rise to both the civil and criminal liabilities. The omissions and commissions can give rise for filing of civil suit as also criminal complaint. A particular transaction may have the potential to give rise to both the civil and criminal liabilities. 5. The allegations made in complaint can prima facie disclose commission of some offence and same transaction may provide cause for filing civil proceedings also. Pendency of civil proceedings will not in all circumstances deter the court of competent jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences to issue process against the accused. A civil case for variety of reasons takes some time for its disposal. In a civil case liability of a person in respect of immoveable or moveable property is to be determined. In criminal case, it is to be determined as to whether any offence has been committed and if it is proved during the course of trial then accused person is to be awarded an appropriate punishment. In civil cases, courts mostly decide individual rights recognized at common law. In criminal case, it is to be determined as to whether any offence has been committed and if it is proved during the course of trial then accused person is to be awarded an appropriate punishment. In civil cases, courts mostly decide individual rights recognized at common law. The effect of order passed in criminal cases travel beyond individual right and in view of penal consequence impact the society at large. The end results in the civil and criminal proceedings are different in nature and character. 6. In the background of the aforementioned discussion, it will be appropriate to be seen as to whether the complaint discloses the commission of offence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 6 & 7 of the complaint are taken note of: 3. "That the accused, with common, criminal dishonest and fraudulent intention, induced the complainant at Kathua (J&cK.) in the month of July/August, 2010 to sell the yarn to them(accused) on credit basis and the accused represented and promised to pay the price of the same in the terms as agreed by the accused, i.e. after 45 days of the supply at Kathua. 4. The complaint fell prey to accused's misrepresentation and inducement and supplied the yarn from Kathua to accused vide following bills. Invoice no. Date Amount 46098 03. 07. 10 85500.00 46325 07. 07. 10 46950.00 46409 08. 07. 10 12103.00 46577 10. 07. 10 53595.00 46685 13. 07. 10 16273.00 47088 21.07.10 33960.00 47230 3. 07. 10 153420.00 47544 27. 07. 10 33960.00 47546 27. 07. 10 106200.00 47683 29. 07. 10 33699.00 48196 05. 08. 10 7155.00 48203 05. 08. 10 1925.00 49264 23. 08. 10 72500.00 Total 6,57,240.00 6. That the complainant would not have agreed and then supplied the goods to the accused i.e. the yarn on credit basis, had the accused not induced, misrepresented and assured the complaisant of making the payment in the time agreed. 7. That the accused in the facts and circumstances stated above have cheated the complainant, thereby depriving it of the value of the goods causing unlawful loss to it and at the time caused unlawful gains to themselves. " 7. Conjoint reading of these paragraphs would, prima facie, show that petitioners with the common criminal intention and misrepresentation, allegedly, induced the complainant to part with property. " 7. Conjoint reading of these paragraphs would, prima facie, show that petitioners with the common criminal intention and misrepresentation, allegedly, induced the complainant to part with property. It also shows that ingredients of commission of offence under Section 420/34 are prima facie made out. The complaint, in these circumstances, cannot be quashed. The complainant has also the right under civil law to seek redressal of his grievances by filing the civil suit. 8. In this petition, order dated 7.5.2011 whereunder process has been issued against the petitioners is called in question. Section 190(a) Cr. PC authorizes the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence, if it appears that allegations contained in complaint constitute an offence. 9. Section 200 Cr. PC provides that a Magistrate when he takes cognizance of offences on complaint, shall at once examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath, and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and the witnesses and also by the Magistrate. Section 202 provides for postponement of issuances of process. Section 203 provides for dismissal of complain. Section 204 of Cr. PC provides for issuance of the process. 10. Exercising of powers under Section 204 Cr. PC is of significant importance, as when the learned Magistrate decides to issue the process, such orders affects the liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The moment the process is issued and the accused person is asked to file bail bonds, his liberty is definitely affected and abridged. The learned Magistrate has to prima facie satisfy itself that the process is to be issued against the accused person for having allegedly committed the offences. He is required to briefly refer to allegations made in complaint and has to record reasons in brief before ordering for issuance of process under Section 204 Cr.PC. 11. Perusal of order dated 7.05.2011 questioned in this petition would show that in causal and mechanical manner the order issuing process has been passed. Even though, statement of complainant has been recorded, but no reference has been made to the same in the impugned order. No reason has been recorded. The learned Magistrate on presentation of the complaint may defer issuance of process and direct for conducting an inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. or he may if satisfied, issue process. Even though, statement of complainant has been recorded, but no reference has been made to the same in the impugned order. No reason has been recorded. The learned Magistrate on presentation of the complaint may defer issuance of process and direct for conducting an inquiry under Section 202 Cr. P.C. or he may if satisfied, issue process. 12. For the above reasons, this petition is disposed of and order dated 07.05.2011 whereunder process has been issued against the petitioner is quashed. The learned Magistrate to pass fresh orders on the complaint in accordance with law. While considering the complaint for issuance of process, the learned Magistrate shall not afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as they have no right under jaw to appear before the Magistrate at that stage. 13. The complainant-respondent shall appear before the trial court on 20.06.2012. Disposed of alongwith connected Cr.MP.