- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for O.P. No.2.
(2.) Admittedly, petitioner/accused happens to loanee who had defaulted to pay the instalment as agreed in terms of agreement having been executed between the petitioner as well as O.P. No.2. At one hand, the petitioner/accused had earlier filed criminal case against the officials of O.P. No.2 wherein cognizance was taken and the same was struck down under Cr.Misc. No. 37898/2005 with Cr.Revision No. 132/2006 vide order dated 27 th of August 2010. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order though not annexed with the pleading but filed during course of argument is to be noted down which is as follows:- " In view of findings that no criminal offence is made out and dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and further taking into consideration the decision of Apex Court in case of Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar and Another, 2005 10 SCC 336, permitting further to continue the proceeding before court below would amount to an abuse of process of Code and to prevent the same, it would be just an expedient to quash the complaint."
(3.) The aforesaid finding was taken into consideration after recording its opinion in paragraph-10 of the order which runs as follows:- " In case there is any error in accounting or even going to this extent that with respect to interpretation of any clause of agreement entered into between the parties, no criminal offence is made out. The clauses of agreement may properly be interpreted or adjudicated upon by a competent Civil Court, but at the same time initiation of the criminal proceeding to achieve the purpose which can only be achieved by a Civil Court is not at all permissible under law.";