The two petitions have been heard together as facts of the two cases from which they arise, in most of their parts, are common and most of them are also admitted and the two are being disposed of by the present common order.

2. The petitions relate to complaint petitions filed by a single complainant, namely, Prakash Chandra Gupta who has claimed himself to be the sole owner and proprietor of a firm named and styled as M/s Hanuman Ram Mahavir Ram Traders, its registered office being in Mirganj (Gopalganj). As regards the accused persons in the two petitions, petitioner Arun Kumar Sharma (Cr. Misc. No. 44542 of 2009) is an accused common in both the complaint petitions which were tiled by the complainant Prakash Chandra Gupta vide Complaint Case no. 1277 of 2009 and 2744 of 2009. In fact, all the petitioners in Cr. Misc. No. 15413 of 2010 also figured as accused in the earlier petition of complaint bearing number 1277 of 2009, but none except petitioner Arun Kumar Sharma was summoned by order of summoning passed in the above noted complaint case on 8.9.2009. The remaining petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 15413 of 2010 have been summoned in Complaint Petition no. 2744 of 2009 by order dated 19.9.2010. The two summoning orders were also similar, as the accused persons of the two cases who are the petitioners before this Court, prima facie, appeared to the Magistrate who passed the two orders committing offence under section 406 of the IPC.

3. The admitted fact is that the petitioners were Director or Members of the Board of Directors of M/s Shri Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Limited, Patna. The above noted firm was engaged in manufacture of Ayurvedic drugs and was marketing it at the relevant time in the undivided State of Bihar through the complainant's firm. It appears that after separation of the State of Jharkhand from Bihar, the manufacturer-company requested the• complainant's firm to take up the sales of its products within the territory of Jharkhand and, accordingly, an agreement was reached (Annexure 2 to both the petitions) and that was signed by the representatives of the two sides. Some terms of business were settled down between the parties and those are stated in various paragraphs of the written agreement. The grievance of the complainant is confined to the terms which appeared in paragraph 19 of Annexure 2.

4. Complaint Case no. 1277 of 2009

It was alleged by the complainant in the aforesaid complaint that as per the agreement reached between the parties, the complainant?s firm carried on the marketing of the products of the manufacturers within the territory of the State of Jharkhand after its creation in the year 2000 and invested a huge sum of money in it. All on a sudden, on 1.4.2009, the manufacturing company closed down its business in the territory of Jharkhand and as per the balance sheet of accounts paid Rs.32,51,885/- to one of the agents of the complainant D.N. Shrivastava. But, while settling the accounts in terms of the business, the firm of the accused persons misappropriated the money which was to be paid to the complainant for carrying out the business from his establishment at Mirganj and wrongly incorporated the same with dishonest intention in the balance sheet of accounts (Annexure 4 to the petitions) and thus, misappropriated the amount which was due to be paid to the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that the manufacturing company stopped dealing with the complainant's firm at Mirganj since 1.4.2009 and the firm of the accused persons were obliged to pay him Rs.16,45,824, for the payment of which, a notice through the Advocate of the complainant was issued on 12.5.2009 and which was responded by the firm of the accused persons on 15.5.2009 and in that reply, the accused persons pointed out that the balance 'sheet of account by which Rs.32,51 ,885 was paid to the complainant through its' agent D.N. Shrivastava, was the accumulated payment of all the dues to the complainant and ther