JUDGMENT In this case petitioners are challenging the order dated 23rd February 2012 passed by Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, J.M. 1st Cass, Danapur in Complaint Case No. 1104(C) of 2011 whereby cognizance has been taken u/s 417 IPC. 2. It appears that the petitioners and O.P.No.2 entered into an agreement for sale of 4 katha of land, appertaining to Tauzi No.19C, Khata No. 454, survey plot no. 298, Jamabandi No. 456Ka, in pursuance thereof Rs.3,00,000/- was paid which is mentioned in the agreement itself with a condition that the O.P.No.2 will pay the entire amount within three months, seven days that comes to 20th June 2011. O.P.No.2 thereafter did not pay the rest amount as per the agreement refused to register the land which led to present dispute. 3. O.P.No.2 filed Title Suit No.332 of 2011 wherein number of reliefs have been sought and out of them only two reliefs to be taken into consideration are relevant for the purpose of this case, relief no.1 is for specific performance of contract and the second relief in alternative, if the Court is unable to grant aforesaid relief direct to return the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. 4. After four days, the present complaint case has been filed where statement has been made that O.P.No.2 had entered into an agreement for sale with a consideration amount out of which part payment was made, when he wanted to get the land registered, petitioners were not available, when he met his son, he gave a different story that he has also interest over the land and without his consent the petitioners have wrongly entered into agreement. 5. When legal notice was served, refusal was communicated on the ground of period for registration of the land has already crossed. Allegation has been made of false representation, have taken money and the court on enquiry under Section 202 of Code of Criminal Procedure found the case is made out u/s 417 IPC and took cognizance. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is basically a civil dispute and, as such, continuation of criminal case is an abuse of process of the court. He has further submitted that petitioners are ready to return the amount along with interest which itself shows that there is no intention of cheating. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is basically a civil dispute and, as such, continuation of criminal case is an abuse of process of the court. He has further submitted that petitioners are ready to return the amount along with interest which itself shows that there is no intention of cheating. He has further submitted that for the same relief, he has already filed a civil suit, there he has sought relief for specific performance of contract or in the alternative, return of money which itself shows civil dispute and, as such, the court below ought to have refused to take cognizance and lastly submitted that for the same cause parallel criminal proceeding is not conceivable and, as such, the order impugned is illegal. 7. In support of his submission, he has relied on two orders of this Court passed in Cr.Misc.No. 37461 of 2009 (Gopal Prasad Choudhary v. State of Bihar & another) and Cr.Misc.No.3891 of 2002 (Lal Babu Sinha and others v. State of Bihar and another) as well as relied on the judgments reported in (2006) 6 SCC 736 Indian Oil Corpn. V. NEPC India Ltd. 8. Counsel for the O.P.No.2 submitted that there is no bar that civil proceeding and criminal proceeding cannot run parallel. If the alleged act constitute a civil act as well as a criminal offence, both can run together. In a criminal case, the court has to find out the offence alleged against the petitioner is made out or not and for the purpose of taking cognizance, court has to see only prima facie case and not whether charges are likely to be proved against him or not. He has further submitted that this Court can interfere when any of the grounds mentioned in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) SCC (Cri) 426] is satisfied where seven grounds have been framed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court defining the area where the Court can interfere in the criminal proceeding. He further submitted that if the offence is made out on reading of the complaint, in that circumstance meticulous examination is prohibited and the test is only the prima facie case and in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering large number of case extracted by way of illustration seven instances where the court can exercise. He further submitted that if the offence is made out on reading of the complaint, in that circumstance meticulous examination is prohibited and the test is only the prima facie case and in that case the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering large number of case extracted by way of illustration seven instances where the court can exercise. The judgment shows that there may be other possible instances where this Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation (supra) in Para-12 and 13 has considered the grounds for interference by the High Courts and one of the grounds that has been given in (v) provides that if it is purely a civil wrong, the criminal proceeding should not be allowed to continue. In Para-13, the Hon’ble Court has laid down principles, if the dispute is essentially a civil dispute and the criminal case is cloak. High Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is relevant to quote Para-12 and 13 of the judgment which is as follows: Para-12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre1, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haquel. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. Para: 13 …”It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence, Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing processes a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For accused it is a serious matter. Para: 13 …”It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence, Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing processes a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” 10. Looking to the facts and circumstances, and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the complaint petition itself shows that the parties have entered into an agreement for sale, part consideration amount has also been paid but later on refusal to registration has been communicated on account of lapse of period for depositing the entire amount. It is clear from the agreement that out of Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- consideration amount was paid, the rest was to be paid by 20th June 2011 but failed, later on legal notice was sent for execution of sale deed which was refused, the civil suit is pending where two reliefs have been sought, one for the specific performance of contract and alternatively relief has been sought for return of the amount along with interest. During the pendency of civil case, present criminal case has been filed. 11. Looking and examining the attending facts and circumstances this court is of the view that it is primarily and essentially a civil dispute and if the criminal case is allowed to continue, it will travesty of justice and abuse and abuse of process of Court and accordingly, the order impugned is quashed. 12. The petition is allowed.