JUDGMENT :

Rumi Kumari Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. By way of this present application, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the complaint case No.744/2013 pending before the learned Additional CJM, Karimganj taking cognizance under Section 406/420/506 of IPC.

3. The case in brief of the petitioner, is that that the respondent No.2 /Ujjal Kanti Chanda, who was his business associate has filed the aforesaid complaint case on 05.02.2013 before the learned CJM, Karimganj alleging that on the approach made by the petitioner to set up a sub-service centre at Karimganj under his authorized service centre namely, M/s Global Technologies and his assurance that he has the authority to set up such sub-service centre, the complainant respondent provided him Rs.2,17,000/- as asked by the petitioner to be required for providing tools and machineries etc.. The complainant accordingly started Samsung sub-service centre by entering into a bilateral agreement dated 01.04.2012, whereby the petitioner made the complainant a SIS Service Provider entrusting the complainant to provide repairing service of mobile phones. It is stated that no receipt was provided against such payment. However, after receipt of the said amount, the accused visited the shop house of the complainant and provided requisite tools, software, signboard etc. necessary for running the said Samsung service centre, in the name and style of M/s Smile Concept. It is further alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant rendered required service to more than 2000 warranty set of the said brand and duly submitted his warranty claims to the petitioner for payment for his service charge as per company norms and initially 2/3 months the accused paid meager amount to the complainant by way of adjustment to the spare parts purchased by the complainant assuring that rest of the service charge would be paid later on. On several occasions, on demand for payment, the accused did not make any payment on different pretext thus, outstanding amount of Rs.2,25,000/- remained unpaid.

4. Thus, it is alleged that the accused with ill motive has totally stopped making any payment and cooperation and restrained him from supplying spare parts to the complainant, as a result of which, business of the complainant has been hampered. As the accused (petitioner) did not pay heed to the claim of the complainant (respondent), he also served a Legal Notice upon the petitioner on 13.05.2013 and subsequent thereto, the accused petition has sent a termination notice dated 31.05.2013. Hence, it is the allegation of the complainant that the accused has intentionally and deliberately committed the illegal act with dishonest intention with a view to misappropriate the entrusted amount, in violation of discharging contractual obligation.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the learned trial court took cognizance of the offence u/s 406/420/506 IPC against the accused person (present petition herein) by its order dated 25.07.2013. Challenging the aforesaid order of cognizance and the entire proceeding present petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Biswas has vehemently contended that the cognizance taken by the learned trial court is bad in law inasmuch as the entire episode revealed by the complainant that the transaction between the parties is based on bilateral agreement and termination notice was also served upon the complainant for non-compliance of the condition of the agreement and the matter may have a civil profile in view of violation of conditions of agreement but it cannot be a subject matter of criminal offence like breach of trust and cheating etc. The learned counsel has led this Court towards the averment made in the complaint petition to submit that complaint case was filed with oblique motive to compel the pe