IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.30932 of 2005 1. BED PRAKASH, son of late Ram Narain Sao, Proprietor Gyan Prakash, Khazanchi Road, Shop No.12, Narayan Market, P.S. Pirbahore, District – Patna. 2. Shambu Yadav alias Shambhu Kumar, son of Late kashi Sardar Yadav, Both residing at Kila Road, Patna City, Police Station – Chowk, District – Patna. ------------ Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Amarnath Khatri, son of Ashwani Kumar Khatri, Resident of Mohalla Pahim Darwaja, Gujri Bazar, Police Station – Khazekalan, District – Patna at present residing at Mogalpura near Police Chowki Police Station Khazekalan, District – Patna. --------------- Opposite Parties. ******* For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP. ****** 06. 20.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None turned up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in spite of appearance since early stage of this case. 2. This is an application for quashing under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking order dated 14.03.2005 passed by Shri Satya Narain Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna City in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2005 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 19 of 2005 filed by opposite party no.2. 3. Undisputedly, the parties are indulged in a business relating to books selling and complainant opposite party no.2 is a distributor having business in the name and style of M/s City Book Centre, and petitioner no.1 also has his - 2 - establishment in the name and style of M/s Gyan Prakash, S- 12, Narayan Market, Khazanchi Road, Patna, and in between the parties supply of books as per demand and order was made and money was being paid in part in this way against a sum of Rs. 7,42,326.45 Paise, after deducting the payment of amount worth Rs. 2,47,642.25 Paise as alleged is lying due against the petitioners who in spite of requests could not paid the money so smelling dishonest intention of the petitioners, the complainant filed the complaint before A.C.J.M. Patna City, which was transferred to the court below where complainant was examined on S.A. followed by an examination of a few more witnesses. On consideration of the materials, court below took cognizance giving rise to instance case. it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no criminal offences is made out, if at all, there is any dispute it relates to accounting and petitioner no.1 has also filed earlier a criminal case bearing Compliant Case No. 2675C/2004 (Annexure – 2). In retaliation thereof the present complaint was filed. 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor though tried to submit that criminal offence is made out but after initial hesitation concedes that it is outright and dispute relating to accounting for which only civil remedy is available. 4. Finding the case squarely covered under the decision of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana and others v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & others reported in A.I.R. 1992 - 3 - SCC 604 and in another case of Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar reported in Supreme Court Cases (2005)10 SCC 336; which has been followed in several decisions of Apex Court as well as this court. 5. The complaint petition and the impugned order both are hereby quashed and this application stands allowed. Rajeev/ (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)