The court established that allegations related to a civil dispute arising from commercial transactions did not disclose any prima facie commission of cognizable offenses, and allowing the FIR to continue would be a tool of harassment against the petitioners.

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

1. Heard learned senior counsel representing the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State as well as private respondents.

2. This criminal writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 28th September, 2015 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, District-Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1145 (C) of 2015 exercising his power under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and also to quash the resultant First Information Report vide Danapur P.S. Case No. 557 of 2015 under Sections 406, 420, 504, 468, 469, 418, 419, 304 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. Learned senior counsel has centered his argument to the basic contention that a bare reading of the complaint without adding or subtracting anything out of it, the complaint/F.I.R. would not disclose even prima facie the commission of any cognizable offence. His further contention is that the complainant/informant has attempted to give a criminal colour/cloak to a purely civil/commercial dispute, which is the subject matter of an arbitration proceeding between the parties. It is also the submission of the learned senior counsel that the criminal proceeding has been initiated only with a malafide intention to harass the petitioners who are holding the senior managerial posts in Ford India Pvt. Ltd. and are involved in the management of the company.

4. It is submitted that in the complaint petition filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, the complainant who is private respondent no. 4 in the present writ application did not make any statement as to the compliance of the provisions of Section 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate erroneously passed the impugned order directing the Danapur Police Station to lodge the First Information Report. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of U.P. and others, (2015) 3 Supreme 152 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that a litigant cannot be allowed to invoke the authority of the Magistrate without filing prior applications under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) before the competent authorities.

5. It is pointed out by learned senior counsel representing the petitioners that petitioner no.1 is the President and Managing Director, Ford India Pvt. Ltd, petitioner no.2 is the Executive Director (Marketing, Sales and Service), petitioner no.3 is the Vice President (Sales), petitioner no.4 is the General Manager (Sales), petitioner no.5 is the General Manager (Dealer Development), petitioner no.6 is the Divisional Operating Manager (Sales and Service), petitioner no.7 is the Regional Service Manager and petitioner no.8 is the Regional Sales Manager of Ford India Private Limited and all these petitioners are posted either at Gurgaon or at Kolkatta. The private respondent no.4 is the Managing Director of M/s. Priyadarshi Purnanand Automobiles Private Limited.

6. A copy of the complaint petition which is the basis of the First Information Report (in short "F.I.R.") has been placed on record as Annexure "1" to the writ application. Learned senior counsel submits that the date of alleged occurrence has been shown in the petition as the year 2007, November, 2013, December, 2013 and 30.07.2015 till date. It is the case of the complainant in the complaint petition that he happens to be a renowned businessman in the State of Bihar. He claims that he was first attached with Mahindra Motors and was involved in selling of the vehicles manufactured by Mahindra and Mahindra. He was also providing service to the vehicles. The complainant claims that since the year, 2007 he was involved in selling of the vehicles manufactured by Ford India Private Limited. It is his case that he had established and constructed office, show room, service center and body shop at the instance of the officers of Ford