The judgment establishes the principle that for an offence to be made out under the Indian Penal Code, specific elements and intent must be present, and the substance of the complaint must disclose the alleged criminal offences.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05. 04. 2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. By the impugned order, the petitioner's application for a direction/ order for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "code") was dismissed in the following words:-

"in my considered opinion, the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and it does not disclose commission of any offence under the Penal Code for which either directions under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. can be passed or cognizance u/s 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C. can be taken to proceed with the complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. Further proceeding in the matter would only lead to wastage of valuable judicial time. The petition as well as complaint are dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room. "

( 2 ) THE petitioner had made the application under Section 156 (3) of the code because the complaint filed by the petitioner before the Police Station malviya Nagar, was not being registered as an FIR and the police was not investigating into the purported offences under Section 406/ 420/467/468/471/506/120 B IPC. A copy of the said complaint has been placed on record and the essential features of the complain are as follows:-

" (a) It is alleged that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between the petitioner (Cogent Silver Fiber Pte. Ltd.) and Noble Fiber technologies Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "noble Fiber Technologies"), which is a company incorporated in U. S. A. The said purported MOU was signed allegedly by one Mr. N. S. Prasad, who is alleged to be the country manager in india of Noble Fiber Technologies. (b) It is alleged that under the MOU, the petitioner was to be appointed as the sole and exclusive agent/ dealer for India in respect of the products of noble Fiber Technologies marketed under the brand name "x-Static". (c) It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner, pursuant to the signing of the said MOU, set up the entire infrastructure and did whatever was required of it under the said MOU. In this connection, it is alleged that the petitioner spent a sum of Rs. 2. 9 crores. (d) It is alleged in the complaint that Noble Fiber Technologies resiled from / disowned the MOU on the ground that the same was not signed by an authorized signatory. (e) In this background, the petitioner contends that Noble Fiber technologies, its President, Vice President and other executives including the said Mr N. S. Prasad were guilty of cheating, breach of trust, forgery, criminal intimidation etc. apart from breach of contractual obligations. "

( 3 ) MR K. K. Sud, the learned senior counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the accused persons need not be made parties and no notice would be necessary because the case is still at the pre-cognizance stage. On merits, Mr Sud contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in holding that the matter was purely of a civil nature. He placed reliance on two Supreme Court decisions in the case of M/s Medchl Chemicals and pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Biological E. Ltd. and Ors. : 2000 Crl. L. J 1487 and rajesh Bajaj v. NCT of Delhi: 1999 Crl. L. J. 1833. He also submitted that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is not required to sift the evidence and the material on record in great detail and that the Magistrate is only required to see whether the facts, as stated in the complaint, disclose an offence or not. If an offence is disclosed, then the Magistrate ought to issue the direction under Section 156 (3) of the Code.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the State was also heard. He supported the impugned order and submitted that the case is entirely of a civil nature and for which civil proceedings are admittedly underway between the parties, as indicated in paragraph 18 of the complaint itself. He further submitted that the complaint does not discl