Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for Opposite Parties.

2. The Opposite Party No. 2 Mr. Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava, Managing Director of M/s. Computer Media (India) Consultants (P.) Ltd. filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, against the petitioner Rakesh Jain, praying therein to take cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused (petitioner) committed the aforesaid offence on the basis of the fact stated in the Complaint Petition.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Police to Institute First Information Report under the Provisions of 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, Bank More, Dhanbad Police Station registered a First Information Report against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the First Information Report mainly on the ground that the allegations made in the FIR even if they are accepted in its entirety do not constitute any offence at all and at best the allegations set out therein disclose liability of a civil nature and. therefore, the First Information Report is liable to be quashed.

5. The allegations made in the FIR as it appears are that the informant, i.e. the Managing Director of M/s. Computer Media (India) Consultants (P.) Ltd., a firm which was dealing in Computer jobs, the accused petitioner Rakesh Jain, who was looking for a Company to do a job for medical transcription, approached the informant and got him ready to perform the Job by inducing him that he shall give a minimum 5000 liens a day for medical transcription and for the same the informants shall be paid 4 US cents per line and the payment will be made on 16th of every month. It is said that as per the direction of the petitioner Rakesh Jam, the informant increased his infrastructure to meet the requirement of job by spending lacs of rupees. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the two on 6.2.2002 to the effect that the petitioner will act as contractor for medical transcription for procuring a minimum of 5000 lines a day from its principals based In USA. Accordingly, the informant started performing the job of the accused petitioner but the informant was not provided with a minimum of 5000 lines a day as agreed rather it never increased more than 1000 lines a day, for which the informant complained but the accused Rakesh Jain gave false assurance that very soon he shall be given 5000 lines as agreed.

It is further stated that the accused was also not acting as per the memorandum for understanding with regard to the payment also and in course of time the dues against the accused reached to the tune of Rs. 2,02.681/-. On repeated reminders for payment, the accused petitioner issued four cheques worth Rs. 2.34.954/-. .Two cheques were deposited in the months of July, 2002 for encashment but were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account. The accused was informed by the informant, who apologized and promised that- he will arrange the payment of the cheques, which were dishonoured and also paid a sum of Rs, 32,273/- in cash.

The Informant produced the remaining two cheques in the Bank for encashment on 24.8.2002 but with the same result and both the cheques were dishonoured. Therefore. the informant gave a notice through his lawyer to the accused petitioner giving 15 days time to make the payments, consequent thereto the informant was asked by the accused petitioner to come over to Bangalore on 18th September, 2002 to collect his payment. Informant reached Bangalore on 20th September, 2002. met the accused and asked for payment but he promised to pay within two/three days. The informant stayed at Bangalore for three days and thereafter, he met the accused but aga