IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.13866 of 2007 ***** N.K.Ambastha son of Late L.N.Ambastha, Regional Manager, I.D.P.L., S.P.Verma Road, Patna – 800 001. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Anil Agarwal son of Sri Kedar Nath Agarwal, Agarwal Distributor, Jawaharlal Road, Town and P.S. Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur. …. …. Opposite parties ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the opposite party : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate ----------- 7. 13.5.2009. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. On the basis of a Complaint Case No.1431 of 2000 filed by opposite party no.2, who happens to be a super stockiest of a Public Sector Undertaking, known as IDPL, cognizance came to be taken against the petitioner on 25.1.2007 by the Court of P.K.Dutta, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur under Sections 417, 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order is under challenge in the present quashing application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Opposite party no.2, Anil Agarwal, came to be appointed as the distributor/stockiest of the company by virtue of an agreement dated 19.9.1992. Somewhere down the line for whatever be the reasons the said agreement was terminated on 1.3.1995. The same became a subject-matter of the Title Suit No.46/95. In the said title suit a prayer for injunction was - 2 - made but it was refused. Subsequently, it is alleged that on certain representation having been made by the high officials of the company and assurance given the petitioner decided to withdraw the title suit, but since the assurances given was not met, to protect the business interest or the turf opposite party no.2 decided to file a complaint case. There have been other rounds of litigation at various stages in the present case, reflection of which are there on the record but they have no bearing on the present issue which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner because the petitioner who happened to be the Regional Manager of the company at a point of time (now superannuated) is still facing prosecution in the said complaint case. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the public sector undertaking had fallen in bad times and all business for all practical purposes have come to a close though efforts are on at rehabilitation and the company is before the B.I.F.R. But those are another issue. The primary contention is that dispute by its very nature and allegation has civil origin, which stands corroborated by the fact that the petitioner rightly moved the Court of civil jurisdiction by filing a civil suit earlier but merely because the title suit did not go beyond a point and he thought that he can bargain with the company, withdrew the same and to put pressure on the company has now brought about the criminal case against the officials. In addition to the same it is also urged that a bare perusal of the Indian Penal Code and the matter relating to the definition which has been given with regard to Section 415 and Section 405 no case or - 3 - ingredients of Section 417 or 406 under which cognizance has been taken is made out. It is out and out contractual matter and breach of contract or termination of dealership will have to be decided either before a Civil Court or by arbitration or whatever be the terms and conditions of that agreement, a criminal Court is no substitute for the same. Learned counsel represent opposite party no.2 vigorously opposes prayer of the petitioner on the ground that there was an observation on the part of the High Court at one stage that the company is duty bound to refund the money deposited with them in terms of the agreement. The company being a continuing entity, whether the petitioner has retired or not will not come in the way in making such claim against the petitioner, for after all the complainant has interest of his self- preservation and his business, which must be taken into consideration. The contention of learned counsel representing opposite party no.2 though vigorous cannot be allowed to be accepted beyond a point because the sum essence of the present litigation is contractual in nature and breaches thereof cannot have remedy in a criminal forum. The petitioner has made out a case for interference. The order taking cognizance dated 25.1.2007 in Complaint Case No.1431 of 2000 stands quashed. The application stands allowed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)