The judgment established the principle that when an investigating agency submits a final report exonerating accused persons, the said report should not be treated as waste paper, and the learned Magistrate, when differing with the police report, is required to assign succinct reasons.

Heard Sri Arun kumar Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwari, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for complainant/opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”), with a prayer to quash an order dated 17-01-2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada (hereinafter referred to as ‘Magistrate’) in Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 301 of 2012/G.R. No. 1459 of 2012 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 737 of 2012). By the said order, the learned Magistrate, differing with the police report, has passed order of cognizance and directed for summoning the petitioner.

3. Short fact of the case is that initially the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 737 of 2012. The complaint was filed on an allegation of committing offences under Sections 406, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint petition, the petitioner was arrayed as sole accused. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant had entered into an agreement with the petitioner & one another and formed a partnership firm for executing certain contract work. It was alleged that complainant had invested huge amount in the business transaction. As per agreement, profit was to be distributed in equal share in between all the three partners. However, even after receipt of more than crores, it was alleged by the complainant that complainant was not paid his share. The complaint petition was referred to the police for registering F.I.R. and investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and as such, an F.I.R., vide Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 301 of 2012, was registered on 20-06-2012. After thorough investigation, the police found the dispute as civil in nature and final report was submitted, vide Final Report No. 449 of 2012 dated 30-11-2012. In the meanwhile, a protest petition was also filed on behalf of the complainant, however; the learned Magistrate by its order dated 17-01-2013 passed order of cognizance for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the petitioner. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition.

4. On 04-03-2016, while directing for issuance of notice to complainant/opposite party no. 2, this Court had directed for staying further proceeding before the court below and thereafter, complainant appeared through Sri Devendra Prasad Singh and matter was finally admitted for hearing on 05-05-2016. While admitting, Lower Court Record was also summoned, which has been received.

5. Sri Arun Kumar Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, by way of referring to facts disclosed in the complaint petition, at the very outset submits that fact disclosed in the complaint petition categorically depicts that it was a case of business transaction in between the petitioner and the complainant. He submits that there were many reasons for the dispute, however; on perusal of the complaint petition itself, there is nothing to suggest for commission of offence either under Section 420 or 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that order of cognizance is liable to be set aside, mainly on the ground that once the investigating agency, after thorough investigation, had submitted final report exonerating the petitioner, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not required to pass order of cognizance, that too without any reason. He submits that order impugned does not indicate any reason for differing with the police report. On aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned order and proceeding in the aforesaid case.

6. Sri Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2 opposing the prayer submits that it is true that there was business tr