Ajit Borthakur, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the private respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. K. Tado, learned Public Prosecutor, State of Arunachal Pradesh-respondent No. 2. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying for setting aside and quashing of the FIR, dated 27.01.2013, filed by the respondent No. 1 against the petitioners, whereupon Itanagar P.S. Case No. 24/2013 under Section 420/34 IPC was registered.

2. The petitioners' case, in brief, is that the respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR, on 27.01.2013, before the Officer-in-Charge, Itanagar P.S. alleging, inter alia, commission of the offence of cheating by them, who were partners in execution of contractual work by refusing to pay the share due to the informant-respondent No. 1 herein out of the bill amount drawn. The said FIR was registered as Itanagar P.S. Case No. 24/2013 under Section 420/34 IPC and took up the investigation.

3. The petitioners have contended that even if the FIR is taken at its face value and accepted in entirety, it does not prima facie constitute a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by Police under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. as the ingredients of the offence of 'cheating' as defined under Section 415 IPC were not satisfied. According to the petitioners, the allegations are related to commercial transaction, wherein one partner was to make payment to other partner for the money invested in the contract works and therefore, purely of a civil nature, which is beyond the purview of a criminal trial. In this regard, the petitioners have drawn attention to the guidelines laid by the Apex Court in the State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335 and prayed to set aside and quash the FIR, dated 27.01.2013, whereupon Itanagar P.S. Case No. 24/2013 under Section 420/34 IPC was registered.

4. The informant/respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-in-opposition and Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of him submits that both the petitioners and the respondent No. 1 arrived at a consensus to execute the contractual works together with an understanding that the 60% of the expenses shall be borne by the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 would bear 40% of the expenses and the net profit, if any, would also be in the same ratio of 60:40. However, the petitioner No. 2 raised the issue of Power of Attorney, dated 16.02.2010, executed in favour of the respondent No. 1 and wanted the same to be made in his favour and therefore, on good faith another Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner No. 2 was executed on 14.09.2010 and further, an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- was also agreed to be paid to the Proprietor of M/S Maham Enterprise. It has been submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is the elder brother of Petitioner No. 2 and through mutual understanding they and the respondent No. 1 executed various contractual works on an understanding of 60:40 ratio on profit. However, after completion of first package of the contract and some portion of the 2nd package of the tender works, petitioners had withdrawn the entire bill amount except Rs. 23 Lacs which is still pending with the concerned Department. The respondent No. 1 further contended that the petitioners are liable to pay Rs. 35 Lakhs to him. According to the respondent No. 1 and on bare perusal of the FIR, dated 27.1.2013, it is apparent that all the essential ingredients of 'cheating' are present as the petitioners have failed to pay the profit due to the respondent No. 1 and thus cheated him and in the back drop of the case, there can be both civil and criminal liabilities as the respondent No. 1 has been deceived with a fraudulent or dishonest intention by way of inducing him to part with the contract works and on believing the same on good faith parted with money, which the respondent No. 1 would not parted with or deliver, had the intention of the petitioners was known to him. Henc