DEEPAK JAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD M/s Kumar Madhurendra & Gopal Govind Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, M/s S.C. Mitra and Sudhir Kumar Raj, the learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) BY this application the petitioner who happens to be the Deputy General Manager (Sales) Hindustan Motors Ltd., one of the accused of Complaint Case No. 2134 (C) of 2005 has prayed for the quashing of the entire proceeding arising therefrom including the order dated 2.6.2006 passed therein by Sri S.K. Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, whereby he had taken cognizance of offence under Sections 403, 418 and 120B IPC and had also issued non - bailable warrants of arrest. It appears that the Hindustan Motor Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") entered into an agreement with the complainant M/s Aayushee Media Consultant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") for publication of certain advertisements in newspapers and the complainant carried out their part of the agreement but the payment therefor was allegedly not made. Eventually certain sums of the outstanding amount was paid by the Company and for the balance amount the complainant allegedly was made to run from pillar to post including several journeys to Calcutta. Seeing no other way round the complaint case was filed by the complainant to procure the balance amount.

(3.) UNFORTUNATELY the entire transaction appears to be a commercial transaction for which there is no scope of criminal liability or accountability. Permitting the criminal proceeding to continue would amount to be an abuse of the process of the Court since it is clear that the complainant by filing the aforesaid complaint wanted recovery of the balance of the money due to him.