Heard Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.

2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Dhanbad Bank More P.S. Case No. 904 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3568 of 2012, which has been instituted for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution story as would appear from the complaint petition originally instituted as C.P. Case No. 1874 of 2012 is that the complainant is the Director of M/s Dwarika Coke Pvt. Ltd. and the accused no. 1 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, whereas the accused no. 2 is the Director of accused no. 1. It has been stated therein that the complainant deals with coal and coke including pearl coke and since the accused persons were in need of pearl coke in their Ferro Alloys Factory, they requested the complainant to supply the said coke according to the specifications and thereby got issued purchase orders dated 30.12.2010. It has been alleged that on the instruction of the accused persons, pearl coke was supplied as per specification and quantities demanded and bills were raised accordingly. It has been alleged that the complainant supplied to the accused persons pearl coke through various bills and challans worth Rs.99,38,445.62/-and payment was made by the accused persons only to the tune of Rs.42,61,226.62/-and the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.56,77,219.62 was not paid and in spite of the request by the complainant, the same was not acceded to. It was also alleged therein that the accused persons had sent Form-C to the complainant for the coke in question sold to them thereby admitting the transactions as well as the amount in question due. It has further been alleged that a legal notice was sent by the complainant on 1.3.2012 but in spite of the same neither the legal notice was replied to nor the amount outstanding was paid to the complainant.

4. After the complaint case was instituted, the same was sent to the police under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for instituting and registering a case and pursuant thereto Dhanbad (Bankmore) P.S. Case No. 904 of 2012 was instituted for the offence punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint petition reveals purely a case of civil nature inasmuch as the dispute is with respect to the alleged non payment of dues on account of supply of pearl coke to the complainant. He has further submitted that there is no deception on the part of the petitioner who has been arrayed as accused no. 2 being the Director of accused no. 1 from its inception and since the allegations are with respect to non payment of the outstanding dues to the complainant, no case under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. In this context, he has referred to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Vir Prakash Sharma Vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 373 and in the case of Rashmi Jain Vs. State of Utter Pradesh and Anr., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 553.

6. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition clearly reveal a case of breach of trust and cheating on the part of the petitioner since on the assurance of the petitioner that pearl coke, as per specifications and as per the required quantity was supplied, but the petitioner on one pretext or the other ignored in making rest amount of payment to the complainant. He has further submitted that paragraphs 4 and 7 of the original complaint petition signify the criminal intent on the part of the petitioner to cheat the complainant by his act of deception. He has also submitted that infact the complainant would subsequently come to know that the petitioner is in the h