C.R. Sarma, J.

1. By this application, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner, who is one of the accused person, in Complaint Case No. 676/2012, pending before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Hojai, Sankardev Nagar, has prayed for quashing the said proceeding on the ground that the allegations made against the petitioner do not constitute a criminal offence and that he is no way involved with the alleged offence. The complainant, who had business relation with the petitioner and other accused persons, used to purchase goods from the accused No. 2 through the petitioner and accordingly used to pay money in advance to the accused persons through his stockiest i.e. the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner, after receiving the goods, supplied by accused No. 2, used to send the same to the complainant. In the said way, the transaction, between the parties, continued w.e.f. 07.05.2011 till 18.05.2011 without any difficulty.

2. The complainant deposited another amount of Rs. 18,62,904/- in two installments i.e. Rs. 8,81,954/- and Rs. 9,91,200/-, with the petitioner, towards supply of goods, but the complainant did not receive the goods against the said payment.

Therefore, the complainant approached the petitioner and the petitioner had assured the complainant that due to certain difficulty with the Company i.e. accused No. 2, the goods could not be supplied and that the goods would be supplied without further delay.

3. However, the complainant failed to receive the goods, as agreed to by the petitioner. According to the complainant, the accused Nos. 2 and 3, by writing a letter, acknowledged the receipt of the money through the petitioner and assured that in the event of failure to dispatch the product (i.e. goods), they would refund the money through cheque.

4. As alleged by the complainant, despite repeated approach, made by him, the accused persons refused to return the amount, taken as advance and threatened the complainant with dire consequences.

5. Aggrieved by the said action, on the part of the accused persons, the respondent filed a complaint before the learned SDJM, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai.

On receipt of the said complaint, the learned SDJM examined the complainant and his witnesses and took cognizance of offence under Sections 406/420/506/34 IPC and issued process to the accused persons.

6. Aggrieved by the said proceeding, the accused person No. 1, as petitioner, has come up with this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. I have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Dey, learned Counsel, appearing for the respondent.

8. Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the allegations, made in the complaint, has submitted that from the beginning of the transaction, as per contract, goods were supplied to the complainant against the payment, received from him and that due to certain difficulty with the Company, the goods in respect of the last payment i.e. deposit of Rs. 18,62,904/-, as claimed by the complainant, goods could not be supplied and that the accused persons, more particularly, the accused Nos. 2 and 3, by writing letter to the complainant, acknowledged that they had received the payment through the petitioner and that they would supply the goods or refund the money received by them.

In view of the said assurance, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention at the beginning of the transaction and that failure to supply the goods, after receiving the payment, can not be sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

9. It is further submitted that the allegation raised by the complainant is truly a civil dispute and that there is no ingredients of any criminal offence. It is also submitted that though the complainant has made the allegation of threat, there is nothing to show as to what typ