JUDGMENT
A.H. Saikia, J.
1. Heard Ms. T. Yangi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Choudhury and Mr. A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. By this revision petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceeding in complaint case No. 884(S)2001 under Section 120(B), 409 and 420 IPC lodged by the complainant/respondent.
3. I have carefully perused the complaint petition and from the perusal of the aforesaid complaint petition it appears that the petitioner impressed upon the respondent to part with an amount of Rs. 5,50,000 (Rupees five lakhs fifty thousand) only and odd with an assurance to get his nice admitted in one of the Dental Colleges namely Oxford Dental College, Rajib Gandhi College of Dental Sciences and Dr. M.P. Ambedkar Dental College, all are at Bangalore. But ultimately petitioner’s niece was refused to such admission in any of the said Colleges and as such, it was alleged that the petitioner had cheated the respondent by deceiving fraudulently and dishonestly to part with the said amount.
4. Ms. Yangi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint does not disclose any essential ingredients to constitute any offence particularly under Section 450 IPC. All the ingredients of ‘cheating’ as defined under Section 415, IPC are totally found to be absent in the present case.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though he had taken the amount in question, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) had already been paid to Shri Suban Jyoti Bhattacharjee, one of the accused named in the complaint for depositing the same with Rajiv Gandhi College of Dental Science, Bangalore and the said amount had also been refunded back to the niece of the respondent which is being evident from the communication dated 20.10.2001 annexed as Annexure-II to this Revision Petition. But the learned counsel has failed to give any account as regards the remaining balance amount to the tune of Rs. 2,50 000 (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only and odd. According to her the amount had been spent in making communications and processing the application, etc., for admission of the niece of the respondent with the concerned Colleges.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that an ordinary reading of the complaint seemingly goes to show that the issue raised therein is absolutely of civil nature and for redressal of the grievances, if any, the respondent may sue the petitioner by initiating a civil action. This court does find any reason to agree with this submission. To remedy the infraction of any right of one’s person property or reputation, he may have remedies under both civil and criminal law. Should the complaint discloses the ingredients of the offence alleged, the entertainment of a criminal proceeding cannot be an impediment merely because remedy lies in the nature of civil lis (for any authority, the case of Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P. Sadasivan reported in (2001) 3 SCC 513 may be seen),
7. On meticulous scrutiny of the complaint petition as a whole as well as the materials available on record including the contentions made in this revision petition with the Annexures appended therefore, this court finds that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner took the amount from the respondent who made the said payment to the petitioner at Shillong through bank draft. It is also seen from the record that an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs had also been refunded to the niece of the petitioner out of Rs. 5,50,000 (five lakhs fifty thousand) only. There is no proper explanation as regards the balance amount. Be that as it may, the facts remains that the petitioner allegedly induced the respondent to deliver the amount in question giving rise to certain element of deception or fraud and/or dishonest inducement in the entire transaction. Accordingly on the face of the complaint itself, it appears that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner for going into the trial and as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the proceeding of the Criminal case at this stage. It is settled law that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, court should not quash the complaint. The power under Section 482 Cr.PC should be exercised sparingly that too, only when there is strong reason to hold that in the interest of justice and in order to avoid the abuse of the process of the Court, the complaint needed to be quashed. Further, the exercise of such inherent power should be confined on exceptional cases and rare occasions. Taking into the factual situation of the case in its entirety, this court does not find that the present case is an exceptional one warranting interference by way of quashing the criminal case.
8. Consequently, this criminal revision is dismissed L.C.R. be sent down forthwith.