CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1009 OF 2001 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ------- 1.BANWARI LAL LOHIYA, Executive President, Motihari Chini Udyog, son of Hira Lal Lohiya, P.S.-Chhitauni, Dist.-East Champaran. 2.Ram Gopal Verma, Cane Manager, Motihari Chini Udyog, Motihari, son of late B.P.Verma, P.S.-Chhitauni Dist.-East Champaran. …… ……Petitioners Versus 1.STATE OF BIHAR 2.Arvind Singh son of Sri Shambhu Singh, Village & P.S.-Pipra Kothi, Dist-East Champaran …… …….Opp.Parties ------ For the petitioners: Mr.Ajay Prasad For Opp.Party No.2 :Mr.Sandeep Kumar Mr.Ajit Kumar For the State: Mr.Hirday Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR --------- Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, who are Executive President and Cane Manager, Motihari Chini Udyog respectively, before this court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 12.12.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Motihari in Criminal Revision Case No.532 of 2000 whereby the revision petition was rejected. The revision petition was preferred against the order dated 22.6.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Motihari. By order dated 22.6.2000 the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No.1340 of 1999. 2 2. Short fact of the case is that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint which was registered as Complaint Case No.1340 of 1999 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari disclosing therein that the complainant, who was a transporter had entered into an agreement with the petitioners for transporting sugar cane from three purchasing centres. It was disclosed that as per the agreement Rs.50,000/- was to be given as advance to the complainant. However, the petitioners paid only Rs.15,000/- as an advance and, thereafter, the complainant arranged some trucks at three centres and also engaged some labourers but the complainant was not given full opportunity to transport sugar cane as per the agreement and, as such, the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.1,68,750/-. On the aforesaid allegation a complaint petition was filed and after enquiry the learned Magistrate by the impugned order had taken cognizance of the offences as indicated above. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners preferred revision petition vide Cr.Revision No.532 of 2000 which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by its order dated 12.12.2000. 3. Aggrieved with the order of rejection of the revision petition, the petitioners have approached this court by filing the present petition. On 20.11.2001, while issuing notice to opposite party no.2, this court directed that till the next date of hearing, further proceeding in Complaint Case No.1340 of 1999 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari, shall remain stayed. Subsequently, on 18.4.2002 the case was 3 admitted for hearing and it was directed that during the pendency of this application, interim order of stay passed on 20.11.2001 shall remain operative. The stay order is still continuing. 4. Mr.Ajay Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance as well revisional order, submits that from perusal of the complaint petition itself it is evident that no offence is made out. It was submitted that in course of business an agreement was entered in between the parties and due to some unavoidable circumstance the complainant was not allowed to transport the sugar cane as per the agreement. It was submitted that even without taking any work from the complainant, the petitioners had paid Rs.15,000/- as advance to him. In such a situation, it was submitted that it was purely a case of civil dispute for which the complainant was not entitled to approach a court of criminal jurisdiction and, as such, it was prayed that both the orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Mr.Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. At the very outset he has raised a preliminary objection and submits that the case is fit to be rejected on the ground that it was virtually a second revision. The present petition was filed in the garb of a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas, in fact, it was a second revision which is barred under section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the aforesaid ground it has been submitted that the petition is fit to be rejected. 4 Patna High Court The 11th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on the record. A perusal of the complaint petition itself indicates that no offence is made. It was purely a contractual dispute. Moreover, the complainant himself has admitted in the complaint petition that he was given an advance of Rs.15,000/-. This court is of the opinion that on such allegation if the proceeding is allowed to proceed before the court below, it will amount to allowing abuse of process of the court and with a view to prevent abuse of process of court, it is necessary to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, both the orders i.e. order dated 12.12.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr.Revision No.532 of 2000 and the order dated 22.6.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Motihari in Complaint Case No.1340 of 1999 are hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar,J.)