ORDER : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Amritanshu Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the First Information Report in Sahibganj (T) P.S. Case No.64/2017 dated 07.08.2017 lodged under section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC. 4. A complaint was filed in the court below which turns into First Information Report alleging therein that the O.P.No.2 had purchased a piece of land measuring 01 Katha 19 Dhurs at Mouza Kelabari, Touzi No.599, Jamabandi No.604, Dag No.658 vide a Deed of Agreement for sale of land from Tapan Kumar Roy for a consideration amount of Rs.14,50,000/- and when the informant/O.P.No.2 in the month of August, 2016 went to construct house over the land then the petitioners came there and claimed the land as purchased from one Sushil Kumar Roy. There was a proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. before the court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj wherein petitioners submitted an agreement. The said agreement appears to be a forged one and therefore the O.P.No.2-informant alleged against the petitioners as they are intending to grab the land of the informant and hence this case. 5. Mr. Gautam Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has purchased the land by way of agreement dated 29.01.1998 from one Sushil Roy and since then the petitioner no.1 and his family members are in continuous possession of the aforesaid land. He submits that no case against the petitioners is made out and the case of the petitioners is fully covered in the light of the judgment delivered in “Md. Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another” reported in (2009) 4 East India Cri. Cases 6 (SC). 6. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is allegation against the petitioners. Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another” reported in (2009) 4 East India Cri. Cases 6 (SC). 6. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is allegation against the petitioners. In paragraph no.2 of the said complaint which is the basis of First Information Report, there is also allegation of using unparliamentary language and the allegation of forgery is there. Thus, prima-facie it is clear that the allegation of cheating against the petitioners are there. On a careful reading of the complaint, it cannot be said that complaint does not disclose the commission of offence. The ingredients of offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC cannot be said to be totally absent on the basis of the allegation in the complaint/FIR. It is well settled that where the allegations in the complaint/FIR are otherwise correct has to be decided on the basis of the evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case, but simply because of the fact that there is remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion that civil remedy is the only remedy available to the petitioners herein. Both the criminal law and civil law remedy can be pursued in diverse situations. As a matter of fact they are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “MEDCHL Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd. and Others” reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269 . This is not a case for exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C. No relief can be extended to the petitioners, and accordingly, Cr. M.P. No. 173 of 2021 is dismissed. 7. This is not a case for exercising power under section 482 Cr.P.C. No relief can be extended to the petitioners, and accordingly, Cr. M.P. No. 173 of 2021 is dismissed. 7. The petitioners may raise all the points at an appropriate stage in the court below. Petition dismissed.