IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50998 of 2007 1. RAM CHANDRA PRASAD, S/O LATE MAHAVIR MAHTO 2. SHIV KUMAR MAHTO, S/O LATE LAXMI MAHTO. BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-RAJNAGAR, P.S. RAJNAGAR, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. --PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNI KUMAR SINHA, S/O RAJ KUMAR SINGH, R/O WARD NO.7, MADHUBANI NAGARPALIKA, P.S. MADHUBANI, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. --OPPOSITE PARTY _______ For the Petitioner : M/s Ashwani Kr. Singh, Pankaj Kr. Das & Pankaj Kr. Singh For the State : Mr. R.B.S. Paherpuri, APP 4 7 .04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. None turned up on behalf of opposite party no.2 inspite of service of notice. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 16th September, 2007 / 17th September, 2007 passed in G.R. no. 508 of 2006 corresponding to Town P.S. Case no. 114 of 2006 taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani and transferred the case 2 for disposal before Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the decisions reported in the case of Anil Mahajan V. Bhor Industries Ltd., (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 228 and in the case of Suneeta Gupta V. Anil Triloknath Sharma, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 920, submitted that the case filed by opposite party no.2 does not constitute any criminal offence rather it relates to civil dispute but the Court has not properly considered the allegation and passed the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also, after initial hesitation, conceded that in fact dispute between the parties relates to proper accounting for which criminal proceeding is not appropriate. It is relevant to mention that opposite party no.2 filed Complaint Case bearing C.R. no. 225 of 2006 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, on 22nd March, 2006 which was sent to the concerned Police Station in exercise of powers under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure giving rise to institution of Madhubani 3 Sadar P.S. Case no. 114 of 2006 under Sections 420, 467, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code . After investigation charge sheet was submitted for the offences afore-mentioned and the court below took cognizance. It revealed from the complaint petition that one Sakli Devi Wife of Late Sant Mahto of Village and Police Station Rajnagar, District-Madhubani, was one of the nominated member of a registered Institution, namely, Laxmi Mahto Ramchandra Mahto, I.O.C. Agent having head office at village Sakri, District- Madhubani, having branches at Nadhubani and Raj Nagar. Said Sakli Devi was sharer of 13% in the said Institution and she executed Will in favour of the complainant and his brother, Anil Kumar Sinha. Some time thereafter she died giving rise to filing of Probate Case no. 15 of 1988 in the Court of District Judge, Madhubani by the petitioner. Finally it was probated and letter of administration was issued on 20th November, 1992 from the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Madhubani but inspite of getting due information other members of the Institution, that is, the petitioner, did neither recognized the complainant and his brother nor provided due profits. Subsequently, 4 complainant issued lawyer’s notice on 31st August, 2005 seeking proper accounting and payment of dues within fifteen days but they avoided and as per complainant the due amount comes worth rupees thirty lacs. Again complainant requested the petitioner for payment but they became annoyed and insulted the complainant giving rise to the filing of the complaint petition under apprehension that any papers of the Insurance also some wrong has been committed. From the very outset of the complaint petition it appears that the original member Sakli Devi died some time before 1998 on basis of will executed by her, letter of administration was issued in favour of opposite party no.2 and his brother in the year 1992 itself but they kept mum till 31st August, 2005 and issued lawyer’s notice and subsequently on 20th March, 2006 filed the complaint petition. The delay of about fourteen years is not at all explained. Moreover, by mere asserting in the complaint petition that it is a case iof cheating and forgery unless any specific act is mentioned it cannot be said that offence of cheating is committed. Rather it is crystal clear from the complaint petition itself that it is a case of alleged breach of contract and proper accounting in 5 the terms of partnership deed between the original partner and subsequently the authorized successors. In the case of Anil Mahajan (Supra) the Apex Court had clearly discussed all aspects and quashed the criminal proceeding. Similar view has also been taken by the Apex Court subsequently in the case of Suneet Gupta (Supra) wherein first information report was lodged after two years. Case was found of dispute of civil nature and criminal proceeding was quashed which was amounted to abuse of process of law. In the instant case, unexplained delay of about fourteen years and the case is out and out of civil nature relating to alleged breach of terms of contract. Thus, if such a criminal proceeding is permitted to continue it shall be nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the impugned order and further proceeding is quashed. The application stand allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad