The main legal point established in the judgment is that if criminality is made out, civil and criminal cases can proceed simultaneously.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned A.P.P. for the State and Ms Shrestha Priya Jha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 23.08.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1776 of 2011, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

3. The complaint case was filed by the O.P. No. 2 alleging inter alia that the complainant is a business man running his business at Rani Sati Mandir Lane, Ratu Road, Ranchi. In the month of October, 2011 one Mritunjay Mishra came to the complainant and introduced himself as Area Sales Manager of KPR Industries and disclosed that his company is manufacturer of Tea and Spices having its factory at Ghaziabad and Haryana and expressed his desire to carry on business in the Ranchi and Jharkhand Market and asked the complainant to carry on business with the said company and since the complainant is also desirous to develop his business as such the complainant became ready to carry on business with the said company.

Thereafter it is alleged that Mritunjay Mishra got the complainant talked with the accused persons on mobile phone and they introduced themselves as Managing Director and Sales Head of the company. The complainant became ready to do business with the petitioner's company. During the course of negotiation the accused persons induce the complainant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs with the company towards security money for supply of product over which interest @ 2% per month was payable by the company and beside this if the complainant would get sell of the product upto 5 lacs per month the commission @ 2% would be payable and if sale is above 5 lakhs then 1% extra commission would be payable.

Further it is alleged that at the time of negotiation with the accused persons it was decided that when the complainant will stop business with the company then the entire balance due of the complainant towards security commission etc would be paid by the company to the complainant without unnecessary delay. The complainant paid 49,990/- on 19.11.2010 and Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.12.2010 by transferring the said money in the account of the accused in the name of their Firm and requested for supply of goods but the accused persons called the complainant at their office at Delhi with cash Rs. 2,00,000/-.

On 16.12.2010 the complainant went to the office of the accused persons with cash Rs. 2 lakhs and paid the same to the accused person, thereafter and again on being asked the complainant deposited 2.5 lakhs in the bank account of the accused. Thereafter the accused persons send product worth about Rs. 3,50,000/- in 4 installment.

Further it is alleged that the accused persons sent the product and carried on business with the complainant upto March 2011 and thereafter stopped sending the products to the complainant and as such the complainant requested the accused to send the products several times but except false assurance no any quality of product was sent by the accused persons.

On 26.09.2011 the complainant went to Delhi and then the accused persons assured the complainant that they shall make payment of his money by October 2011 but the same was not done.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that for the business transaction, the complaint case has been filed, which is against the mandate of law. He submits that no ingredients of Section 406 IPC are found. He further submits that the money was deposited and pursuant to that the articles have been supplied to the O.P. No. 2 and in that view of the matter, the complaint case is not maintainable. He further submits that the considering the nature of allegation in the complaint, only the civil proceeding is maintainable. To buttr