JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

The petitioners have challenged the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant against them for alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 RPC which is stated to be pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class (2nd Additional Munsiff), Srinagar. The petitioners have also challenged order dated 18.09.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate whereby the learned Magistrate has observed that the offences under sections 420, 506 RPC are prima facie made out against the petitioners and issued process against them.

2. Before coming to the grounds of challenge urged in the petition, it would be apt to refer to the contents of the impugned complaint.

3. Respondent-complainant in his complaint has alleged that acting as an Engineer under the instructions of the petitioners, he placed orders for supply of building material including tin sheets, iron, cement, bajri, bricks, marbles, sand, costly stones and other allied costly materials with one Farooq Ahmad Kar. According to the respondent-complainant, the petitioners-accused had undertaken the work of the construction of godown of Food Corporation of India at Sangrama Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla and the respondent-complainant was given task to look after the entire work including engaging of the masons, labourers and purchase of building material etc. It is alleged that the respondent-complainant placed a number of orders for purchase of building material and other valuable building items on behalf of the petitioners for the purpose of construction of the godown. The respondent-complainant has placed on record copies of some of the bills and the vouchers in this regard. It is alleged that the complainant-respondent believed the commitment of the petitioners to pay all the outstanding dues which the respondent-complainant owes to various people including labourers, carpenters, masons and suppliers of the building material, and he went on executing the work. It is further alleged that the petitioners kept on promising that the payment will be released in his favour but to the dismay of the respondent-complainant, the petitioners turned around and took a summersault thereby avoiding the payment on one pretext or the other. It is further alleged that on account of acts of the petitioners, the respondent-complainant had to suffer a lot monetarily and that the petitioners have committed breach of trust and cheating. It is also alleged that when the respondent-complainant approached the petitioners to pay the dues, the petitioners threatened him with dire consequences.

4. It is contended by the petitioners that the contents of the impugned complaint do not disclose commission of any offence by them. It is further contended that the transaction between the petitioners and the respondent-complainant even if taken to be true, is purely of civil nature and that respondent-complainant has filed the instant complaint just to harass the petitioners. It is averred by the petitioners that the respondent-complainant was employed only for a brief period for the purpose of supervising the project relating to the land acquisition and thereafter due to his misconduct and mischievous activities, his services were terminated. It is contended that the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely false and frivolous and that they did not make out the ingredients of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 506 RPC. It is further contended that the petitioners never authorized the respondent-complainant to procure building material and labour force for execution of the project.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that at the initial stage only the allegations made in the complaint and the material in support thereof is required to be analyzed by the Magistrate for the purpose of taking cognizance of offences and for issuing process against the accused. He has further contended that meticulous analysis of the