Heard the parties.

2. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case bearing C/1 Case No. 1532 of 2006 including the order dated 8.6.2007 whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

3. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of.

4. It is the case of the complainant that Stewards and Lloyds of India Limited, a Kolkata based Company, is registered with Tata Steel. The company used to take work for execution of various mechanical and civil work including erection, fabrication and dismantling of structure and building as required by the steel company. On getting such kind of job, the company awarded job to the complainant for dismantling of structures and building, transportation of store materials from one destination to another, transportation of debris, shifting of materials from one place to another. While the work assigned to the complainant was being done, the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 in the capacity of the authority of the company asked the complainant verbally to do the work also other than the work assigned under the written order. The complainant did that and on completion of the job, the complainant submitted bills for Rs.22 lakhs which was not paid in spite of legal notice being given. In such situation, there was no option for the complainant but to lodge a complainant which was lodged and was registered as C/1 Case No. 1532 of 2006 in which cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 420 and 426 of Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioners.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that accepting the entire allegation to be true, the petitioners cannot be said to have committed offence under which cognizance of the offences has been taken, as the petitioners have never been alleged to have deceived the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly, rather it is a simple case of non-payment of the dues, claimed by the complainant, which dispute is civil in nature and as such nonpayment of dues can be said to be a mere breach of agreement and under the situation, the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.

6. As against this, Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, submits that it is the case of the complainant that the complainant at the behest of petitioner nos. 2 and 3 did accomplish the job which was orally assigned to the complainant by accused no. 2 besides the job assigned under written order and only thereafter put forth demand of the money which the complainant by accomplishing the job had earned, but it was never paid and therefore, it would amount misappropriation of the amount which the complainant claimed to have earned.

7. Further submission is that the petitioners have come forward with a plea that they had never taken job from the complainant and thus the conduct of the petitioners goes to show that the petitioners' intention was there to cheat the complainant. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph-15 of the decision rendered in a case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and others Vs. State of Bihar and another {(2000) 4 SCC 168}.

8. Learned counsel further submits that in the worst case if the court does find that the case of cheating and criminal breach of trust is not made out, a case of dishonest misappropriation in terms of the provision as contained in Section 403 of Indian Penal Code is certainly made out.

9. In the context of the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, it is to be considered as to whether the allegation made in the complaint does constitute offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust and even of dishonest misappropria