IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57649 of 2007 Bindeshwari Prasad, son of Late Awadh Nandan Singh, village Bhimpura, PS Makhdumpur, district Jehanabad – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Jawahar Lal Singh, son of Sri Udeet Narain Singh, Managing Director, Bihar State Handlom Weavers Cooperative Union Limited, Rajendra Nagar, Patna – Opp. Parties. 9 20.12.2010 This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 13.3.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 104C/2002. The allegation in the complaint petition is that the petitioner had taken supply of yarn from the complainant i.e. the Bihar State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Union Limited through the Bhagalpur Spinning Mill. The petitioner was to supply Sarees and Dhotis to the Cooperative Union Limited in lieu the fact that the opposite party had to pay wages to the weavers. The case f the complainant is that the supply of yarn was given on 19.8.1997. On 27.8.1997 the scheme to provide Dhoti and Saree was put in abeyance by the State Government. It is submitted that the petitioner was asked to deposit the yarn on 24.9.1997 and 22.1.1998 which the petitioner did not do. In the mean time it appears that the Bihar State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Union Limited 2 filed an application to resolve the dispute through an Arbitrator. The order of the Arbitrator is contained in Annexure 11 which provided payment of money for wages to the weavers through the Centre head. However, payment was not made to the weavers. It is mentioned in the case of the petitioner that payment was made to the Centre Head, but was not provided to the weavers as a result of which the petitioner claims that the weavers refused to supply Dhoti and Saree. Essentially the dispute is that the weavers are not supplying the Dhoti and Saree due to non-payment of their wages, whereas the stand of the Bihar State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Union Limited is that the scheme for distributing Dhoti and Sari was in abeyance and the concerned person was asked to return the yarn despite which they have not returned the yarn, rather, have sold it in the open market. There are contradictory facts which are being raised in this case. Certain facts are in favour of the petitioner, whereas certain other documents are in favour of the State. In fact the Arbitrator has gone so far to hold that without making proper enquiry case of misappropriation has been instituted 3 and has placed the liability on the shoulder of the Bihar State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Union Limited. It is submitted that the Union has filed an appeal in this case which is pending before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. In the present case, therefore, it will be proper that the petitioner should bring all the facts, at the stage of filing an application for discharge in this case, including the order of the Arbitrator and the order passed in the appeal, against the order of the Arbitrator, to the notice of the court in order to substantiate his claim that no criminal offence is made out in the facts of the present case. The petitioner is advised to surrender in court in this case. Since it is apparent that the dispute is partly civil in nature, I do not think that there will be any impediment for the court to accept the appearance of the petitioner in this case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)