H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.05.2007 passed by Sri R.S. Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2006, whereby prima facie offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code has been found against the petitioners and summons were directed to be issued against them. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in the said complaint case.

3. It may be stated that earlier by order dated 16.08.2010 this application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the Court below to face the trial. However, the said order was passed on technical ground and not on merits, which was challenged by the petitioners in the Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 1009 of 2014, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9077 of 2011. By order dated 29.04.2014 passed therein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order dated 16.08.2010 passed by this Court, asking this Court to decide the case on merits. This is how this application is again before us for consideration.

4. Complaint Case No. 1451 of 2006 was filed by the complainant opposite party No. 2 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company engaged in manufacturing animal feeds. Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are described as the President, Managing Director and the Vice-President in the said Company, whereas petitioner No. 5 has been described as the Business Head of the Company in the complaint petition. However, this is disputed by petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, in this application and it is stated that they are only part time Directors of the Company and they are not responsible for the day to day business activities of the Company.

5. In the complaint petition it is stated that the complainant firm was engaged in poultry business having its branches at Hazaribag, Jamshedpur and Dhanbad. The accused Company was looking for distributor and they approached the complainant and offered distributorship to the complainant to work on cash and carry basis. It is alleged that the then Sales Officer of the Company namely, Mr. B. Patra, informed the complainant that though the Company did not want any cash security/bank guarantee etc., but they desired that the complainant should at least hand over three blank undated cheques to the Company as security for distributorship, which were accordingly handed over and received in the Company on 13.07.2000. Thereafter, the complainant was appointed as distributor of the Company and the business with the Company was going on smoothly and without any dispute from the either side, except that the cheques were demanded back by the complainant, but they were not returned back. It is alleged that in the month of November 2003 a wrong supply was made by the Company which proved disastrous and harmful to the users causing mortality and no growth in the chicks. Upon complaint the Company along with their doctor visited the places of the poultry farmers and they acknowledged and admitted to adjust the loss suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.38,00,000/-lakhs, which however, was not compensated. It is alleged that thereafter the Company started showing harsh attitude and started sending late supply and at times also less supplies. It is further alleged that in the months of February and March, 2005 the accused again sent poor and toxic consignments to the complainant, as a result of which the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,00,000/-and again the Company agreed to compensate the complainant. It is alleged in the complaint petition that by May 2005, the complainant had an admitted claim of Rs.1,58,00,000/-against the accused Company upon which they had agreed to pay back Rs.38,00,