Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Harsh Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the opposite party as also learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioners, in these applications, are seeking quashing of the order dated 25.02.2015 passed in Complaint CC No. 27367/2014 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna has taken cognizance of the offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the ‘IPC’) and decided to issue summons to the petitioners.

3. In Cr. Misc. No. 49450/2015, petitioner no. 1 is a public limited company whereas petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are the officers/employees of the petitioner no. 1. In Cr. Misc. No. 49449/2015 the sole petitioner is again one of the officers/employees of petitioner no. 1 company in Cr. Misc. No. 49450/2015. They are aggrieved by the order issuing summons to them in the complaint brought by the opposite party no. 2.

Case of the Complainant

4. It appears from the records that the complainant -O.P. No. 2 filed a private complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna giving rise to the Complaint Case No. 27367/2014. The complainant alleged that the accused persons have committed offences which are cognizable, therefore, the learned Magistrate be pleased to take cognizance of the offences and summons the accused to face the trial.

5. The allegations against the petitioners as set out in the complaint petition are as under: –

(I) The complainant claimed that he is the Managing Director of M/s Maa Jagdambey, LPG, B.P., (Private) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘company’ or the ‘complainant-company’). One of the business of the company is to act as dealer and distributor of radio of Philips Electronics India Limited. It is stated that in the year 2011, the Government of Bihar floated a tender for distribution of radio sets amongst Mahadalit families under Mukhyamantri Radio Yojana. The Philips Electronics India Limited (accused no. 1) was one of the tenderers. On being declared successful, the accused no. 1 was allotted the tender to supply and distribute radio amongst Mahadalit families of Bihar.

(II) In the complaint petition, it is alleged that accused no. 3 and 8 who are also petitioners in these two applications had business relationship with the complainant and they were knowing the capability and expertise of the complainant in the field as a vendor who could have coordinated the supply in remote villages of different districts and would have distributed the radio sets to the actual beneficiaries. It is stated that on the approach of accused no. 2, 3, 5, 9 and 10 requesting the Managing Director of the company to undertake the work, the Managing Director agreed to enter into an agreement with the accused no. 1 to start the work as a distributor. A registered agreement dated 30.11.2011 was executed between accused no. 1 represented by accused no. 7 and the complainant company represented by it’s Managing Director. In terms of the agreement the complainant agreed to submit a bank guarantee of Rupees One Crore and demand draft of Rs. 58 Lakhs with accused no. 1. It was agreed that on encashment of demand draft, the radio sets would be supplied to the complainant company. The complainant company, thereafter collected the coupons from the concerned Block Development Officer and distributed the radio sets among the identified beneficiaries.

(III) According to the complainant company, it was agreed that the complainant company would raise the bill by enclosing the coupon to substantiate that supply to the concerned Block Development Officer who would make payment directly to the complainant authority. Thereafter, it was agreed that the complainant company will continue to make payment for radio sets after deducting the commission and supply will accordingly be resumed against each transaction.

(IV) The case of the complainant company is t