ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal, learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned senior counsel for the O.P. No.2 Mr. Ashok Choudhary.

2. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.03.1016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in connection with Nath Nagar P.S. Case No. 226 of 2012, G.R. No. 3453 of 2012 whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset before making submission on merits of the case submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of Bimla Tiwary vs. State of Bihar, SLP (Crl.) No. 834-835 of 2023 has held that “criminal law cannot be used for arm-twisting and money recovery as the recovery of money is essentially within the realm of civil proceeding.” The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is being relied only for the reason that in the nature of allegation and the facts as emerging from the allegations, it would manifest that the present F.I.R is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court and has been instituted for recovering money by taking recourse to criminal proceeding.

4. The learned counsel next submits that the informant instituted the aforesaid FIR, alleging that he is Managing Director of the Company, namely, M/s. Dhandapani Spinning Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘DSML’), the Head Office of which is situated at Salem (Tamilnadu). It is next alleged that the informant (opposite party no. 2) has established a Branch of the said company at K.B. Lal Road, Nath Nagar in the year 2010, where one Ajay Kumar Agrawal was employed as a staff who used to look after the work of the company at the said Branch Office. It is next alleged that the said employee was required to sell the stock of yarn supplied by the company in the market and deposit the collection in the bank account of the company. It is also alleged that on 26.11.2011, the informant enquired from Ajay Kumar Agrawal with regard to the stock of yarn worth Rs.45 lakhs, cash Rs.55 lakhs and collection of Rs.35 lakhs, when Ajay Kumar Agrawal replied that he had already left the job and had handed over the stock of yarn worth Rs.45 lakhs, cash Rs.55 lakhs and the amount of collection to the brother-in-law of the informant Amit Anjani Poddar (petitioner). It is further alleged that the informant accordingly approached the petitioner, who assured payment of the amount, as alleged, at the earliest and further deposited Rs.22 lakhs thereafter since 08.12.2011 did not deposit the balance amount of Rs.1 crore 13 lakhs rather the petitioner raised a claim of Rs.1.25 crores against the firm of the informant whereas to the best of the knowledge of the informant there is no agreement regarding the sale of yarn from the Branch Office of the company of the informant at Bhagalpur executed with the petitioner. It is thus alleged that petitioner in connivance with Ajay Kumar Agrawal misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,13,00,000/- of the informant.

4A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the dispute appears to be civil in nature to which a criminal colour has been given. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation in the F.I.R, it would manifest that the informant himself alleges that the petitioner raised a claim of Rs.1.25 crores against his company but then to his knowledge there was no agreement in respect of selling of yarn with the petitioner. It is next submitted that when the petitioner raised his claim of Rs.1.25 crores when the present FIR came to be instituted. It is also submitted that the dispute apart from being civil is also on account of differences in the family of the informant with the petitioner as the petitioner was married to the sist