A complaint alleging a civil dispute cannot be converted into a criminal proceeding by mere reproduction of the words "dishonestly" or "intention to cheat".

VAIDYA J.-This is an application under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant is a public limited company by name Esso Standard Inc., registered in the State of Delaware, U. S. A., and having its Branch Office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Bombay-20. On February 23, 1972, respondent No.1 Udharam Bhagwandas Japanwalla, as a Constituted Attorney of Venus Polish filed a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, alleging that the applicant. Esso Standard Company which was described in the complaint as accused No. 1, 2 one Z. A. Merchant, an officer of the Company who was described as accused No.2, 3. one R. K. Gupta, a Sales Officer of the Company described as accused No.3, 4. one R. D. Vyas, Sales Manager of the Company, described as accused No.4 and 5 one C. B. Thomas, General Manager of the Company, described as accused No.5 committed offences under sections 420, 411 read with sections 34, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate issued summonses on a perusal of the complaint and hearing the complainant. The complaint is numbered as Case No. 18/S of 1972. It is common ground that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were served with summonses but accused Nos. 4 and 5 who are residing in the United States are not yet served. On July 3, 1972, respondent No. 1 moved the Magistrate for extradition proceedings being taken against accused Nos. 4 and 5.

2. The above application is filed by Esso Company contending that the continuation of the proceedings before the Magistrate is a gross abuse of the Courts process and praying that in exercise of the powers of this Court under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code the proceedings in Case No. 18/S of 1972 pending in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, 28th Court, Esplanade, Bombay, should be quashed and the complaint dismissed, or, in the alternative, the process issued by the learned Magistrate be set aside and the complaint required to be disposed of after holding an inquiry under section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application of the Company is opposed by respondent No. 1. Mr. M. B. Kadam, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Maharashtra, supports the application.

3. Mr. Jethmalani, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Company, submitted that having regard to the categories of cases settled, though not exhaustive of all other cases as mentioned in R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab,1 the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 squarely falls within the second category, i.e. the category of cases where the allegations in the first information report or the complaint even if they are taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute an offence alleged and apart from that, the ends of justice require that the proceedings pending before the Presidency Magistrate should be quashed against the applicant-Company and its Officers who are mentioned as accused Nos. 2 to 5. He submitted that on the face of it the complaint disclosed no criminal offence under any section of the Indian Penal Code under which process has been issued by the learned Magistrate viz., sections 420, 417 read with sections 34, 109 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code because the allegations made in the complaint were wholly false and even assuming them to be true they did not establish the ingredients of the said offence. He argued that the dispute between the parties was at the worst a civil dispute and even according to the complaint the claim of the complainant was lime barred. He pointed out that in the year 1963 with respect to the same dispute respondent No. 1 made a claim of Rs. 85,000; in May 1969 he made a claim of Rs. 7,56,840 and in February 1971 he inflated it to Rs. 22,56,840 with the ulterior motive of blackmailing the officers of the applicant- Company and to force a settlement of a frivolous and time-barred claim. He argued further that although the complaint r