The judgment established that in cases where there is no prima facie case under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the dispute is in the nature of a civil matter, the court may quash the order of taking cognizance and issuance of summons.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Despite service of notice in terms of the order dated 14.08.2014 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Learned APP for the State is also not present, as is the general phenomenon in most of the cases.

3. The petitioner in the present case happens to be a short term employee of a company, namely, M/s Bio Start Product Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 41/A, Naktala Road, Kolkata. A complaint, giving rise to Complaint Case No. 456(C)/2005, came to be filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna by one Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, proprietor of J.M.D. Traders. The complaint petition has been enclosed as Annexure-I of the present application.

4. It is the case of the complainant that under an agreement for C & F agent, executed between the complainant and the Company, a security deposit was made against the stock to be provided by the accused-company. The complainant alleged that he had deposited Rs. 4 lacs for starting the work as C & F agent of the accused-company. After getting the money, the company and accused persons, representing the company, started unexpected behaviour, like non-cooperation in smooth functioning of the business, delaying attitude towards payment of money, sales tax and putting new conditions. Irrespective of the terms and conditions settled by the accused persons caused grave inconvenience and humiliation to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that it became impracticable for the complainant, as an agent of the accused-company because the inconvenience caused to him. Ultimately, on 19.06.2004, the complainant informed the accused-company expressing his displeasure and intimated that he does not want to represent C & F agent of the accused-company and asked him to settle the account and to make payment along with his security money.

5. It is further placed in the complaint petition that accused no. 2 terminated the agency of the complainant, made payment of other dues/claims of the complainant and also got transferred the stock of goods and assured the complainant to return the security money deposited with him for C & F agent to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs only within few months, but surprisingly enough has not paid the said amount till yet with malafide intention and dishonest motive for the reasons best known to him. The complainant allegedly visited at Kolkata office of the accused-company and met accused no. 2, Surajit Chakraborty, who misbehaved with the complainant. It is alleged that on 03.01.2005, when the complainant went to the office on the invitation of accused no. 2, he was misbehaved by accused no. 2 and other accused persons, who not only abused him, humiliated him, rather threatened him of dire consequences and asked him not to demand security money as it would be dangerous and harmful for his safety and health.

6. The complainant was examined and summons were issued to all the accused named in the complaint petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was an employee of the Company for a period of 6-8 months only and had no connection at all with the present complainant. Learned counsel has taken me through the complaint petition in order to substantiate his argument that in fact, there is not a single statement by way of allegation against the present petitioner. No role has been assigned to him. Petitioner had worked for 6 to 8 months in the accused company as a Manager. He is aged about 76 years. He further submits that the tone and tenor of the language used in the complaint petition would suggest that it is in the nature of a civil dispute, which has been given a colour of criminal proceeding in the present case.

8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner it is an admitted position that the complainant was working as C & F agent and had got his money, but the grievance of t