IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the distinction between offences under different sections, ruling that the provisions of Section 210 Cr.PC do not apply when the nature of the offences differs.

JUDGMENT :

1. Head Mr. K. Gooptu, learned counsel assisted by Mr. D. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State respondent no. 1 and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. T. Deuri, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. This is an application u/s 482 Cr.PC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 12.10.2018 passed by learned JMFC, C Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Complaint Case No. 4683 /2017 thereby rejecting the petition filed u/s 210 Cr.PC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner no. 1 M/s. Tea Mech (India) is a proprietorship firm of Sri Ajay Haldia [petitioner no. 2] having its registered office at 96D, Karaya Road, P.S. Karaya, Kolkata. The petitioner no. 1 firm is engaged in business as a manufacturer and supplier of engineering goods and processing machinery for tea, sesame, nuts, grains industries. The respondent no. 2 company namely M/s. Brahmaputra Biochem Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as BBPL] had entered into a business relationship with the petitioner no. 1 and they also entered into an agreement/contract accordingly. By the said agreement the respondent company was also benefitted. But, respondent no. 2 company had always engaged in various illegal ways to harm the petitioners and also threatened the petitioner no. 2 in this regard. However, in pursuant to the trade agreement, the petitioners’ company was supplying various materials but, no payment was made towards purchase of grains against the purchase orders by the respondent. Some purchase orders are relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this petition, which were placed on 15.06.2015 by BBPL [respondent] clearly mentions the dealings directly with the suppliers and traders and as such involvement of the petitioners was limited to the extent only as a facilitator with the payment of commission to the petitioners as managing agent especially in view and in terms of the said agreement.

4. The respondent company could not carry out their business operations properly and also failed to make payments to the suppliers/traders and therefore the business transactions with the respondent company had been affected. The petitioners had huge outstanding dues recoverable from the respondent company in pursuance of said agreement and on account of and for managing the grain handling and logistics. Accordingly, the petitioners sent letter dated 05.09.2016 to the BBPL [respondent no. 2] and demanded the outstanding amount of Rs. 84,64,998/- which was still payable by the respondent no. 2. The petitioners made several requests for payment of the money but, the respondent no. 2 by flimsy excuses one after another did not made any payment only with an intention to defraud the petitioners. However, the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent for non-payment of dues are purely commercial/civil in nature and in spite of the existence of the said agreement, the respondent no. 2 without resorting to any dispute resolution terms of the said agreement after laying gap of time suddenly lodged a complaint dated 18.01.2017 before CID, Assam. Accordingly, the CID registered the case as FIR No. 3/2017 dated 01.02.2017 u/s 406/408/420 IPC. The respondent without considering the outstanding dues of Rs. 84,64,998/-, without any basis or reason only with a malafide intention filed the counter-claim of Rs. 1,36,97,352/- only with the intention to defraud the petitioners from his legitimate dues. However, after receiving the notice, the petitioners tried to contact the respondent no. 2 with a view to resolve the dispute in an amicable manner as per the terms of the agreement. In the agreement to which both the parties entered, there was a specific provision for adjudication of the matter by appointing a sole arbitrator at Kolkata and the same is only subj