Civil remedy does not bar cheating and conspiracy charges where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence.

Allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy arising from an FIR were held not fit for quashing merely because a civil remedy was also available. The Court applied the settled principle that, at the stage of inherent jurisdiction, it will not assess defence material or conduct a detailed factual inquiry; if the FIR and supporting statements disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence, criminal proceedings may continue. On that basis, the challenge to the cognizance order failed and the criminal case was allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR and the order taking cognizance for offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code deserved to be quashed on the ground that the dispute was purely civil and the allegations did not disclose a criminal offence.

Analysis: The allegations in the FIR, read with the supporting statements, disclosed a complaint of cheating and conspiracy rather than a mere commercial default. At the stage of considering quashing under the inherent jurisdiction, the Court would not evaluate defence documents or enter into a detailed appraisal of disputed facts. The settled principle is that the existence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, exclude criminal liability where the averments disclose the ingredients of a cognizable offence. On the facts, the earlier and present orders of the High Court were consistent with that principle, and no ground was made out to interfere with the criminal proceedings at this stage.

Conclusion: The prayer to quash the proceedings was rejected and the criminal case was allowed to continue against the appellants.

---