Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. The prayer in this writ petition is two-fold: (i) to quash FIR, dated 12.2.2009 lodged by the respondent No. 1 with the Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Gangtok, Sikkim and (ii) to quash the summons issued by the senior Superintendent of Police, CID, PHQ, Gangtok, Sikkim (respondent No. 3) under Section 160, Cr. PC directing the appearance of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer at CID Office, Gangtok, Sikkim.

2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition, as pleaded therein, are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of Ferro Silicon at its factory at Byrnihat, Meghalaya while the respondent No. 1, is a private limited company having its registered office at Mamrin, Namchi District, South Sikkim. Pursuant to the telephonic request made by the respondent No. 1 for purchase of Ferro Silicon, the petitioner-company on 20.10.2008 sent a quotation through Fax message for supply of 100 M.T. of the Ferro Silicon lumps prime grade containing all particulars including the price thereof. The respondent No. 1, on receipt of the quotation, sent the purchase order dated 20.10.2008 for supplying the same for a price of Rs. 79,84,109 for Siliguri. Having received the payment of Rs. 40 lacs, the petitioner dispatched 35 M.T. of Ferro Silicon (full truck load) on 23.10.2008 through B.H. Roadways Corporation vide L.R. No. 386 dated 23.10.2008 with all the necessary documents including the lorry consignment note dated 23.10.2008. The fully laden truck reached Siliguri on 27.10.2008, and the representative of the respondent No. 1 took delivery of the consignment after weighing the goods at the Mohan Weigh Bridge, Sevok Road, Siliguri on 27.10.2008 in which the weight of the material was found to be 35,150 kg as per the copy of the weigh bridge slip sent to the petitioner. No complaint was initially made by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner-company on the quality or quantity of the goods including any defect or damage in connection therewith. According to the petitioner-company, on 30.10.2008, three days after taking delivery of those goods, it was surprised to receive a letter from the respondent No. 1 requesting joint inspection. It is claimed by the petitioner-company that this device was employed by the respondent No. 1 with the mala fide intention of backing out from its purchase order as the price of the ordered goods had come down abruptly in the market. The petitioner accordingly sent its representative to Sikkim to show its bona fide keeping in view their hitherto cordial relationship, and the joint inspection was done on 3.11.2008 at Sikkim.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner-company that after the joint inspection, a report not reflecting the result of the joint inspection was prepared by the respondent No. 1, which was protested by the representative of the petitioner-company, namely, Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, saying that some of the entries made therein were outside the scope of the joint inspection, but he was forced to put his signature on that report bearing dated 3.11.2008. When its representative returned to Gauhati and narrated the strong-arm tactic used by the respondent No. 2 against him at Sikkim to the petitioner-company, it immediately sent a Fax message to the respondent-company on 12.11.2008 protesting their highhandedness and at the same time requesting them to deposit the balance payments so as to enable them to dispatch the balance quantity of the materials. In reply, the respondent-company in their letter dated 18.11.2008 followed by another letter dated 24.11.2008 questioned the quality of the materials sent by the petitioner on the basis of the joint analysis report dated 3.11.2008 and indicated that the balance quantity so ordered by them be treated as cancelled and requested them to refund the differential amount of Rs. 1,199,012 at the earliest, which, according to the petitioner, was a device to back out altogether from the contract. Sever