- (1.) This is an application under section 482 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceeding in G. R. Case No. 893 of 1995. At the time of moving the petition, a Rule was issued. Thereafter, when the matter appeared in course of the day, an order was handed over to me by Mr. Basu. It appears that the concerned Magistrate in terms of the order dated 17.3.99 has formed an opinion that a prima facie case under section 406 read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code "has been made out against the accused person and the matter was fixed for framing of charges". From a perusal of the later order produced before this Court, it appears that the concerned Magistrate has only concentrated his attention on the case diary and he has made a reference that nothing is indicated from there as to whether any attempt has been made by the accused petitioner to return the money to the said complaint or there was any effect even to the assurance about the fulfillment of the terms of agreement for supply of mustard oil. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that there was a business dealing between the complainant and the accused for sometime past which was also born from the statements made by different persons as appearing from the statements recorded in the proceeding under 161, Cr. P. C. The said versions indicate that prima facie there was a commercial transaction subsisting or running in between the parties. There was a reference about an agreement which was ascribed by Mr. Basu, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as oral in nature. This Court wanted to ascertain as to whether there was any entrustment of the property and/or money. To that the answer was as to be found from the records that some money was alleged to have been advanced for supply of oil which was not supplied and, as such, the said charges were sought to be framed. On a bare reading of the provision of section 405 I. P. C. , it appears that it provides for entrustment in any manner with property and to misappropriate it for his own purpose. Then the conclusion will follow in terms of the succeeding section, namely, 406, I. P. C. So far as the other section is concerned, same is comprehended by section 415, I. P. C. which postulates, inter alia, that whoever by designing any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the said person to deliver any property or any other thing as comprehended in the said section to cause damage by way of deception, that would constitute the interment of the word 'agitating'. Here, the transaction appear's to be the resultant effect of a course of a commercial transaction in between the parties and if in terms of the agreement the money is not paid, then the remedy is for refund of the money or for, if possible, by way of specific relief or endorsement of that relief as covered by the agreement. This Court after having taken a look to the factual matrix of the case is overtaken by an impression that it is part of a commercial transaction in between the parties for which remedy lies before the appropriate Court of civil jurisdiction and remedy is by way of a civil nature. A reference may be made to the views of the Apex Court as pointed out by Mr. Basu in the case of Superintendent of Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Birendra Ch. Chakraborty, 1974 AIR(SC) 290 where it has been held that if there is a long and intimate relationship between the complainant and the accused and were numerous transactions between them, it would be difficult to discern as to the extent the complainant was due to part with his properties alleged to be the subject- matter of breach of trust which was considered to be a dispute essentially of a civil nature to be decided by the appropriate Court. A further reference may be made to the case of Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishen Kumar Surekha, 1974 AIR(SC) 301 where it appears that some money was parted with by the complainant in favour of the accused so that the accused could start with a business but the accused instead of starting the business in the name of the complainant started the same in his own name. The answer was that the person concerned was not saddledwith the liability arising out of section 420, I. P. C. nor such facts constitute the ingredient of section 415, I. P. C. In view of the prima facie opinion formed by this Court that the dispute is of a civil nature and, therefore, it appears that the manner in which the criminal Court has sought to frame charges, such framing of charges is accordingly liable to be set aside and/or quashed. The revisional application, therefore, stands allowed.;