Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS Cr. Misc. petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 26.6.1999 and 23.5.2000 passed by Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with the Complaint Case No. 231 of 1999 whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code and also his criminal prosecution arising out of the said Complaint Case. The brief fact which appears from the Complaint is that the complainant is a manufacturing company and it produce cement whereas the petitioner was appointed as agent by the Company to sell its product i.e. cement. The business term was established between them but after some time some dispute arose with regard to rate of cement whereafter some amount remain unpaid. Correspondences were made between the parties but all in vain and hence this complaint.
(2.) IT is submitted that ingredients of Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code are highly lacking. It is admitted case of the complainant that there was business term between the parties which continued for some time. It is alleged that the petitioner has ordered for 60 Trucks of cement and the agreed rate was Rs. 85 per bag but the complainant supplied only 4 Trucks @ Rs. 95 and this transaction gave birth to a dispute between the parties. Learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the order passed by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice in this Cr. Misc. Petition which indicates that the then Hon'ble Chief Justice has clearly observed that no offence whatsoever is made out and that the subject matter of the complaint prima facie is a pure and simple civil dispute between the parties. Counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 as well as State have opposed the prayer and submitted that there was entrustment and the petitioner accused had misappropriated the amount.
(3.) BE that as it may, business transaction which was prevailing between the parties is admitted. If there was any outstanding dues against supply of cement, the complainant company is at liberty to file suit for recovery of the amount so dues. I do not find any case of cheating on the basis of averment made in the complaint and that is also reflected in the order dated 15.6.2001 passed by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In that view of the matter, the order dated 26.6.1999 and 23.5.2000 passed by Shri Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in connection with the Complaint Case No. 231 of 1999 is set aside and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner arising out of Complaint Case No. 231 of 1999 stands quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.;