IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.529 of 2003 MANISH KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 13 19.8.2008. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 2.7.2003 passed by Sri R.P. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.2031 © of 2002 thereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint under section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is Export Manager in M/S Siddhi Exports Pvt. Ltd which carries on Export and Import business in various kinds of goods. The opposite party no.2 is Managing Director of M/S KAYJAY CONSULTANTS (Export) Pvt. Ltd. which provides service as consultant and also works as a commission agent for and on behalf of the export business. It has been alleged that both the parties in the year 1999 entered into an oral agreement that the opposite party no.2 shall work as Export Consultant/Liaison Office on Ad-hoc payment of Rs. One Lakh per month besides commission of 1-2% depending upon profitability of each deal. The complainant’s Company pays Rs.46,25,000/- in total through drafts etc. from time to time and cash of Rs.16,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 for positive foreign deal undertaken by him. In course of enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., the complainant examined two witnesses. Apart from complaint on oath. The learned lower court after consideration of evidence of witnesses 2 found that the dispute is only business dispute and alleged payments were part of commission for the business provided to the complainant’s Company and Consultancy monthly charge payable to opposite party no.2. Accordingly, he dismissed the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order in question both in law as well as on facts. It is submitted that the learned lower court has committed serious illegality by evaluating the evidence like trial. The learned lower court ought to have summoned the opposite party on the basis of evidence available on the record. In support of his submission reliance has been placed upon decision reported in 2002(9) SCC 709, 1980 BLJR 45, 1976 Supreme Court 1947 and 1981 Cr. Law Journal 688. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the impugned order, the complaint petition as also the decision cited above. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no illegality. The learned lower court has dismissed the complaint as he did find “no sufficient ground for proceeding”. The witnesses themselves have admitted in their evidence relating to payment of commission for business provided by the opposite party no.2. Apparently, dispute is business dispute. Learned lower court has rightly dismissed the complaint. I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. 3 N.H./ ( Ghanshyam Prasad )