preceding paragraphs, this Court is not required to consider the explanation offered to rebut the allegations as the facts leading to the FIR itself would suffice to show the existence of prima facie materials of the alleged offence. It is not disputed that the case is under investigation. Therefore, the explanation and/or counter allegations made by the petitioner against the opposite party no.2 company and the informant can only be examined during investigation, which is all the more reason why the investigation should not be scuttled at the threshold only because the accused-petitioner has a different explanation to offer. As regards the attempt, feeble though, made on behalf of the petitioner that the allegations, even if accepted on their face value reveal a civil dispute, this Court can only profitably refer to the decision in Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd. (supra) that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may be available to the complainant, that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding. The real test is whether the allegation in the complaint discloses the criminal offence alleged or not. As has been discussed hereinbefore, even the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR at least prima facie, reveal the existence of the ingredients of the offence of cheating within the meaning of Section 420 of I.P.C. Whether such allegation will actually
