JUDGMENT RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Niranjan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. J Mazumdar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. So far as the opposite party no. 3 is concerned, by virtue of non compliance of the order of this Court dated 12.08.2008, the instant application already stood rejected as against the opposite party no. 3. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.5.2002, passed by Shri A.K. Yadav, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1129 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the learned court below has refused to take cognizance for the offence under sections 420, 406, 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and has consequently dismissed the complaint under the provisions of section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The prosecution story, as would appear from the complaint petition instituted by the petitioner, is that the complainant along with one Ashok Kumar was willing to purchase a house in Hirapur locality in Dhanbad town and the opposite party no. 2 had informed them that there is a house of one Smt. Geeta Sen at Hirapur Hatia Road, which was for sale. It was alleged that believing the statement of the co-accused, the complainant-petitioner became ready to purchase the said house and had paid an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- as part of the total consideration amount of Rs. 11 lacs on various dates and after receiving the said amount, the accused persons on one pretext or the other, delayed taking steps for registration of the said property. It was further alleged that the complainant subsequently came to know that there are various litigations with respect to the said house in question and when he requested the accused persons to refund the advance amount but in spite of giving a written undertaking, when the amount was not refunded, the complaint case was filed. 4. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for registering the case and subsequent thereto, Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 713 of 2002 was instituted. 5. After investigation, having found the case to be that of a civil nature, a final form was submitted by the Investigating Officer. On being noticed, the petitioner filed a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint petition and on enquiry under section 202 Cr. 5. After investigation, having found the case to be that of a civil nature, a final form was submitted by the Investigating Officer. On being noticed, the petitioner filed a protest petition, which was treated as a complaint petition and on enquiry under section 202 Cr. P.C., the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation as also his witnesses and ultimately vide order dated 9.5.2002 having found the case to be purely a case of civil nature, the complaint case was dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 9.5.2002 by submitting that the intention of the accused persons to dishonestly induce the petitioner to make payment of an amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- as a part consideration amount would be evident from the fact that the entire matter with respect to the property being under litigation was suppressed by the accused persons. He has submitted that the facts of a given case may give rise to both civil and criminal liability and merely because there is a flavour of civil liability in the offences alleged, there cannot be any bar in initiation of a criminal proceeding, more so when element of cheating and dishonest inducement is apparent on the face of the record. He has further submitted that there is no breach of agreement, rather there was a wilful dishonesty on the part of the accused persons, who by deceitful means had induced the petitioner-complainant to pay the advance of Rs. 5,50,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 is merely a broker and had facilitated the meeting of the accused no. 2 with the complainant-petitioner and, thus, his role was limited to that extent only. She has further submitted that at the time of agreement entered into between the petitioner and the accused no. 2, there was no litigation with respect to the property in question and the bickering arose between the parties on account of presence of tenants and the vacant possession could not have been taken since the tenants were in occupation of the house. In this context, she has referred to the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 513 . 8. In this context, she has referred to the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. vs. P. Sadasivan and Another, (2001) 3 SCC 513 . 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that in the complaint petition, which was instituted by the petitioner, the essence of criminal intent has been sought to be inserted in the complaint case to the effect that when the complainant had enquired from Smt. Geeta Sen whether the land in question is free from all encumbrances, Smt. Geeta Sen had suppressed the real fact and told the petitioner that no litigation is going on in respect to the said house. Even assuming the allegation, as made in the complaint and as noted above, is true, the same has been levelled against Smt. Geeta Sen and not against the petitioner. The complaint case further discloses that the opposite party no. 2 herein was delaying the registration of the house on one pretext or the other and had given an undertaking in writing to return the entire advance amount, if the said house along with the land is not registered by Smt. Geeta Sen and others by evicting the tenant. Thus, the same would mean that the opposite party no. 2 was at the mercy of Smt. Geeta Sen and until and unless the said Smt. Geeta Sen agreed to such registration, no further steps in the matter could have been taken by the opposite party no. 2 unilaterally. Even otherwise, the entire dispute seems to revolve around the presence of tenants, which has been mentioned in the complaint petition itself. It is trite law that in a particular case, there may be both civil and criminal wrong but the same cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. However, in a particular case, the real test is to find out as to whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 9. In the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. (supra), it has been held thus:- “10. The facts in the present case have to be appreciated in the light of the various decisions of this Court. When somebody suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. 9. In the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. (supra), it has been held thus:- “10. The facts in the present case have to be appreciated in the light of the various decisions of this Court. When somebody suffers injury to his person, property or reputation, he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. The injury alleged may form the basis of civil claim and may also constitute the ingredients of some crime punishable under criminal law. When there is dispute between the parties arising out of a transaction involving passing of valuable properties between them, the aggrieved person may have a right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time, law permits the victim to proceed against the wrongdoer for having committed an offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. Here the main offence alleged by the appellant is that the respondents committed the offence under Section 420 IPC and the case of the appellant is that the respondents have cheated him and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver property. To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. It must also be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the offence. There is no allegation that the respondents made any wilful misrepresentation. Even according to the appellant, the parties entered into a valid lease agreement and the grievance of the appellant is that the respondents failed to discharge their contractual obligations. In the complaint, there is no allegation that there was fraud or dishonest inducement on the part of the respondents and thereby the respondents parted with the property. It is trite law and common sense that an honest man entering into a contract is deemed to represent that he has the present intention of carrying it out but if, having accepted the pecuniary advantage involved in the transaction, he fails to pay his debt, he does not necessarily evade the debt by deception.” 10. The factual matrix as discussed in the present case points to the fact that in spite of having paid the part consideration amount of Rs. The factual matrix as discussed in the present case points to the fact that in spite of having paid the part consideration amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- the house along with the land in question was not registered in the name of the petitioner by Smt. Geeta Sen and the opposite party no. 2 being the broker had promised to get the registration done by evicting the tenants. Even if it is assumed that the opposite party no. 2 had taken the advance consideration amount from the petitioner and has failed to return the amount, the same does not necessarily mean that by deception, he was avoiding in making the refund. 11. I, thus, find that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has considered the entire aspects of the matter and had dismissed the complaint vide order dated 9.5.2002 on the ground that the case is purely of a civil nature. The order passed by the learned Magistrate in view of what has been discussed above, does not suffer from any illegality and the same is, accordingly, affirmed. 12. This application is, thus, dismissed.