IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.17066 of 2007 AMIT SRIVASTAVA @ AMIT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA S/O SRI D.B.SRIVASTAVA R/O ROOM NO. 233/3 A.J.C.BOSE ROAD,KOLKATA-20, WEST BENGAL--- ------------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHIV SHANKAR KUMAR S/O SRI SATYA NARAYAN SAO R/O- VILLAGE ABGILA, DEVI ASTHAN P.O- BUNIADGANJ, PS- MUFASIL DISTT- GAYA--- COMPLAINANT OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 6 1.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel opposite party no.2 and learned APP for the State. Petitioner wants quashing of order taking cognizance dated 25.3.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Complaint Case No. 1557 of 2005 by virtue of which summons were ordered to be issued under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the origin of the present case is an agreement which had been reached between the parties in relation to hire purchase of the vehicles. It is not disputed that there was some understanding and relationship between the present petitioner and opposite party no.2, but the difference arising out of the same need not be turned into a criminal prosecution. The allegation in the FIR is that certain payments have been made from time to time for purchase of the vehicles but despite the money having been received the vehicles were not supplied. Petitioner however states that hire purchase agreement was entered between the parties at Kolkatta and the same has been brought on record as annexure- 3. There is provision of arbitration in the agreement. After dishonour of the cheques, when the petitioner took steps for protecting the commercial - 2 - interest at Kolkatta, the present case has come to be filed at Gaya only to harass him as well as put pressure on him to sort out the dispute which has arisen earlier in the matter. It is alleged that a case for bouncing of cheques had also been lodged at Kolkatta which would be evident from the order sheet as contained in annexure-5. Learned counsel representing the opposite party no.2 has filed a counter affidavit and tried to establish that the payments have been made and there was mischief by the petitioner and he is liable to be prosecuted for neither refunding the money nor providing the vehicles. From the tenor of the submission and perusal of the record including the counter affidavit, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the origin of the present dispute is civil dispute, arising out of the matter of hire purchase agreement, which has been entered between the parities is correct. It is a good enough ground for this Court to interfere with the proceeding. If the opposite party no.2 wants to peruse the matter he has remedy before the civil court of competent jurisdiction and not the criminal prosecution. The present prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court. In view of the above the order taking cognizance dated 25.3.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1557 of 2005/tr. 1247 of 2006 pending in the court of Sri R.R.Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya stands quashed in so far as it relates to petitioner. This application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)