Heard Mr. A. Goyal, the learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R.J. Baruah, the learned

Addl. P.P. for the State and Mr. A. Nath, the learned advocate for the informant, i.e. the respondent No.2.

2. By this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R. and the criminal proceeding pertaining to Azara P.S. Case No. 511/2017 under sections 406, 420, 506, 294, 34 I.P.C.

3. The respondent No.2 had lodged an ejahar before the Officer- In- Charge of Azara P.S. on 09.10.2017 on behalf of M/s. Gopiram Chetram, Siding Bazar, Tinsukia, interalia, alleging that they had brought sugar from Sabitgarh, U.P. to Azara Railway Station for onward carriage to Tinsukia by truck No. AS-01-S-7103 on 19.09.2017. But, the petitioner by influencing the driver of, had unloaded the said sugar in his godown at Dal Mill, Bijoynagar, Palasbari Road, by force despite objection and protest of the driver. Thereafter, the driver informed them about the matter and that the petitioner contacted them over phone and requested not to take any legal action and assured that he would pay the value of sugar within 21.09.2017. The respondent No.2 waited till 24.09.2017 and verbally informed the police on 24.09.2017, but still the petitioner had not paid any money. The respondent No.2 had also stated that the petitioner had cheated them and that he was killing time by giving excuses for which there was delay in lodging the FIR and it was further stated that instead of paying the petitioner was threatening them over phone when they tried to contact him. Accordingly, Azara P.S. Case No. 511/2017 under sections 406, 420, 506, 294, 34 I.P.C. was registered.

4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that in this case, the petitioner has a valid defence to the effect that the consignment of sugar was despatched by the respondent No.2 vide Invoice No. G/46 dated 19.09.2017 for Rs.22,20,408/- against which a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was remitted through Punjab National Bank. It is projected that the balance money was withheld because of the bad quality of sugar, which is a trade and/or a pure civil dispute.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the document relating to monetary transaction on which the petitioner was relying upon are (i) the invoice No. G/46 dated 19.09.2017 raised by the respondent No.2 for Rs.22,20,408/-, (ii) Bank’s certificate of RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) by which a sum of Rs.16.00 lakh was transferred by the firm of the petitioner in favour of M/s. Gopiram Chetram, the firm of the respondent No.2, and (iii) copy of seizure list by which the police had seized the invoice dated 19.09.2017 and invoice for 383 + 676 packets sugar and, as such, all the said documents were of sterling quality and ought not to be left out for consideration by this Court. Therefore, by referring to the contents of the defence documents, the learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the contents of the ejahar would reveal that dispute between the parties was predominantly a civil dispute, for which the process of lodging FIR was abuse of the process of law and an attempt to short-cut to realize money. The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on the case of (a) Binod Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 663, (b) Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1, (c) Dalip Kaur & Ors. Vs. Jagnar Singh & Anr., (2009) 14 SCC 696, (d) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335.

6. Per contra, the learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that as the present case involves a private dispute and the first informant, who is the respondent No.2 herein is duly represented by his the learned advocate, as such, he has nothing to submit save and except that as a FIR has been lodged, it was incumbent on part of the State Police to investigate the allegation and it is submitted that at his stage when police investigation was in progress, th