JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, the same is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This criminal misc. application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is filed seeking quash of the FIR being C.R. No. 11210015210232, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 3. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the second respondent, who is the de facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 – State. 4. Prefatory facts germane to dispose of this application may briefly be stated as follow: 4.1 The de facto complainant, who is the second respondent herein has been running a business in selling and purchasing Prawns (sea food) along with supplements and Prawn Culture Medicine in the name and style BKP Aqua Culture Limited. 4.2 The accused No. 1 and the accused No. 3, who are the wife and the husband, are also doing business in the same field and they constituted a partnership firm in the name and style “Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm”. It is stated that the petitioner, who is hereto accused No. 2, is not a partner of the said firm of accused Nos. 1 and 3, however, by falsely representing that he is also a partner of the said firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm, he has entered into an MoU with the complainant for supply of raw-material worth Rs.4 crore. As per the said MoU, the petitioner who is accused No. 2, has to rear the Prawns and other sea food with raw-material supplied to him and then return the said reared Prawns and other sea food to the complainant. However, after rearing the said Prawns and other sea food, instead of returning the same to the complainant as per the said MoU, he sold away the said product to some third parties and did not even pay the money payable relating to the said sale to the complainant. However, after rearing the said Prawns and other sea food, instead of returning the same to the complainant as per the said MoU, he sold away the said product to some third parties and did not even pay the money payable relating to the said sale to the complainant. 4.3 Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has impersonated himself as a partner of the said firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm and fraudulently entered into the MoU with the de facto complainant by making false representation that he is the partner of the said firm and thereby, induced the de facto complainant to supply the said raw-material to him by false representation and thereafter, after rearing the Prawns and other sea food, he has sold away the same without returning the same to the de facto complainant and thereby, committed criminal breach of trust and cheating. 4.4 Narrating the above facts, the de facto complainant has initially lodged a report with the Umra Police Station, Surat stating that the petitioner has committed criminal breach of trust and cheating the de facto complainant. But, the Umra Police did not register the FIR on the basis of the said report and after conducting a preliminary inquiry, they refused to register the FIR stating that the facts of the case only show that there is a civil liability. 4.5 Thereafter, the de facto complainant has approached the Commissioner of Police, Surat. He entrusted the matter for investigation to the DCB Police Station, Surat. The said report was registered as FIR in DCB Police Station. Although, the investigation has been concluded, the police could not file the Charge-sheet as there was an interim direction from this Court not to file the Charge- sheet without prior permission of the Court. 4.6 During the pendency of the investigation, the present application was filed by the petitioner, who is the accused No. 2, seeking quash of the said FIR. 4.6 During the pendency of the investigation, the present application was filed by the petitioner, who is the accused No. 2, seeking quash of the said FIR. The petitioner sought quash of the FIR on twin grounds that, i) the facts of the case on its face value show that there is only a civil liability and the facts of the case do not constitute any offence for which the FIR was registered and as such, allowing the criminal proceedings to be continued in the said facts and circumstances of the case would amount to abuse of process of Court and; ii) that when a similar report was lodged earlier with Umra Police Station, Surat, that after preliminary inquiry, the police refused to register the case on the ground that the facts of the case gave rise only to the civil liability and as such, the registration of the FIR on the basis of the second report that was lodged with the police (DCB Police Station) amounts to abuse of process of law. Thus, these are the two grounds on which the petitioner sought quash of the FIR. 5. The material fact that the petitioner who is the accused No. 2, has entered into the MoU with the de facto complainant for supply of raw-material for the purpose of rearing the same by him and to return the Prawns and other sea food that are reared with the said raw-material, is absolutely not in dispute. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly that the MoU in question was entered into by the petitioner with the de facto complainant. The contents of the said MoU are also not in dispute and in controversy. Now, it is significant to note here that the petitioner who is the accused No. 2, has entered into the said MoU with the de facto complainant in his capacity as the partner of the firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm, which is owned by the accused Nos. 1 and 3. Now, it is significant to note here that the petitioner who is the accused No. 2, has entered into the said MoU with the de facto complainant in his capacity as the partner of the firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm, which is owned by the accused Nos. 1 and 3. The main case of the prosecution is that the petitioner – accused No. 2 is not the partner of the said firm and he has falsely represented to the complainant that he is the partner of the said firm and entered into the said MoU with the complainant with false representation and thereby, induced the complainant to supply the said raw-material to the petitioner – accused No. 2 to rear the Prawns and other sea food and return the same to the complainant and thereby, cheated the complainant and also committed criminal breach of trust against him. 5.1 Admittedly, the petitioner is not the partner of the firm by name Riddhi Siddhi Aqua Farm, which is owned by the accused Nos. 1 and 3. Even though, he is not the partner of the firm, he has entered into the MoU with the de facto complainant as if he is the partner of the said firm. Therefore, it is a clear case of making false representation by the petitioner to induce de facto complainant to deliver the said property i.e., the raw-material to him for the purpose of rearing Prawns and other sea food and to return the same to the de facto complainant. Had he been not the partner of the said firm, the complainant would not have entered into MoU and delivered the said property to the petitioner. Therefore, the facts of the case, prima facie, show that he has induced the complainant to deliver the said property to him by making false representation and by resorting to impersonation as a partner of the firm. Thus, the facts, prima facie, constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. As the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into MoU and to deliver the raw-material by the said false representation, the facts of the case, prima facie, clearly indicate that there is guilty intention in the mind of the petitioner to cheat the de facto complainant right from the inception of the transaction. As the petitioner induced the de facto complainant to enter into MoU and to deliver the raw-material by the said false representation, the facts of the case, prima facie, clearly indicate that there is guilty intention in the mind of the petitioner to cheat the de facto complainant right from the inception of the transaction. 5.2 Even, as per the terms of the MoU, the petitioner has to rear the Prawns and other sea food with raw-material that were supplied to him by the de facto complainant and return the reared Prawns and other sea food to the de facto complainant. But, as per the prosecution version, after rearing the Prawns and other sea food with the raw-material supplied to him, instead of returning the same to the complainant in terms of the MoU, the petitioner has sold away the said product to the third parties. Therefore, the said facts of the case also clearly constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC. When the raw-material was entrusted to him for the specific purpose of rearing the Prawns and other sea food and to return the said product to the complainant and in breach of the same, if the petitioner has sold away the said product to the third parties, prima facie, it constitutes the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC. In the facts of the case, there is entrustment of property, also entrustment with dominion over property, and dishonest misappropriation and conversion of the said property to his own use in violation of the legal contract. 5.3 Therefore, when the facts of the case, prima facie, constitute the aforesaid two offences, in the considered view of this Court, it is not a fit case where the FIR or the criminal proceedings launched thereon can be quashed at this stage. The investigation shall be allowed to go on and the prosecution shall be allowed to file the Charge-sheet and it is for the trial Court to decide the culpability or otherwise of the petitioner in respect of the said offences after trial, in the final adjudication of the case after the trial of the case is concluded. The investigation shall be allowed to go on and the prosecution shall be allowed to file the Charge-sheet and it is for the trial Court to decide the culpability or otherwise of the petitioner in respect of the said offences after trial, in the final adjudication of the case after the trial of the case is concluded. So, it cannot be said that the registration of the FIR and investigation in the said case in the given facts of the case amount to abuse of process of law, warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the IPC to quash the same. 5.4 Apropos the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the earlier report that was lodged was not registered by the Umra Police and they refused to register the FIR after preliminary inquiry on the ground that there is civil liability involved in the lis, and as such, registering the FIR again by the DCB Police Station, Surat is not legally sustainable and the present criminal proceedings are required to be quashed on that ground, this Court finds no merit in the said contention. As the Umra Police has taken an erroneous view without properly understanding the facts of the case and nature of allegations and the accusation and the legal position relating to the case, it cannot be said that registration of FIR by DCB Police Station on the directions given by the Commissioner of Police, Surat after he was approached by the complainant, subsequent to refusal of registering FIR by the Umra Police, is illegal or unsustainable. When the facts of the case, as discussed herein supra, prima facie constitute the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that Umra Police did not register the FIR on the ground that facts of the case give rise only to a civil liability. There is no legal bar to register the FIR subsequently by the DCB Police Station and to investigate the same. Even, dismissal of the complaint in criminal proceedings and even discharge of accused in criminal case will not amount autrefois acquit as per explanation appended to Section 300 CrPC. So, it will not bar second complaint or even subsequent prosecution in relation to same accusation in the Court of law. Even, dismissal of the complaint in criminal proceedings and even discharge of accused in criminal case will not amount autrefois acquit as per explanation appended to Section 300 CrPC. So, it will not bar second complaint or even subsequent prosecution in relation to same accusation in the Court of law. When that be the legal position, there is absolutely no bar to register FIR by DCB Police even after Surat Police refused to register FIR on the sole ground that there is civil liability. Further, it is pertinent to note that when the facts of the case give rise to both civil liability and also the criminal liability, prosecution case cannot be thrown away and quashed merely on the ground that there is a civil remedy. The person liable for the same, has to face both the civil and criminal proceedings. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 6. Resultantly, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. DCB Police are permitted to file the Charge-sheet as it is stated that the investigation is now completed. Then, the law has to take its own course. 6.1 As main application is dismissed, as a sequel, connected application does not survive. The same stands disposed of accordingly.