accused Pradeep Dixit, he has admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 1 crore as security amount and he shall return the amount at the earliest. Thus, there is prima-facie case to presume that the petitioner deceived the respondent no.5 fraudulently or dishonestly and induced him to deliver property and cheated him. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire transaction is of civil nature, therefore, remedy lies under Civil law is concerned, merely because there might be an element of civil dispute between the parties, that by itself does not exclude criminal liability, as the basic ingredients of offence under Sections 420/409 IPC are prima facie made out in the present case. If there is an element of cheating and fraud it is always open for a party, to prosecute the other side for the offences alleged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that it is true 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 allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not.
