IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22926 of 2007 M/S PANJON LIMITED & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ARN ----------- 7. 21. 05. 2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. Vide order dated 7. 12. 2000 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Patna, in Complaint Case No. 908© of 2000 corresponding to T.R. No. 1041 of 2006, cognizance was taken against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420 and 120 B I.P.C. Since the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in the case, they decided to challenge this order by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As per allegation made in the Complaint Petition, the Petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in production of various kinds of medicines and toffees etc. for which the complainant was appointed consignee agent/stockist. It is alleged that the complainant had deposited Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lacks) as security amount. All did not work out well in the said business transaction and it is alleged that the petitioners’ company with bad motive misappropriated Rs. 2, 00,000/-(two lacks) which was the security deposit by the complainant. In this back ground the complaint was filed and cognizance was taken. Submission of the learned counsel for the 2 petitioners is that it is a dispute which relates to a business transaction which was bonafide in nature. The petitioners categorically stated that all accounts and details of payment have already been explained to the complainant and the circumstances under which the said security deposit was utilised in the business transaction, but the complainant being not satisfied with the same and putting pressure on the petitioners has filed the present case which was an abuse of process of law. It is further submitted that it is basically a civil dispute relating to accounts and a criminal court is not an answer to such dispute. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submits that the company has treated the complainant and the money in question. The company did not take care of his commitments with regard to advertisement and marketing and the explanation or condonation offered by them is only a ploy for non-payment of security deposit. Having perused the allegation made in the complaint and having heard the contentions of both the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter basically relates to civil dispute and in this regard the same is an abuse of process of law in the complainant wants to settle the matter by sitting across the table with the petitioners and by tallying with the records. 3 The petitioners have made out a case for interference with the order taking cognizance passed in the complaint case. The impugned order, thus, stands quashed and the application is allowed. SKBOSE (Ajay Kumar Tripathi)