The central legal point established in the judgment is that non-payment for services does not necessarily constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust, and disputes of this nature are essentially civil in nature.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Sudhansu Kr. Deo, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

2. Cr.M.P. No.2863 of 2012 has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance date 05.09.2011 passed in connection with C/1 Case No. 2495 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

3. Cr.M.P. No.2796 of 2012 has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.08.2012 where by petition filed under section 205 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected in C/1 Case No. 2495 of 2011, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

4. The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein that the complainant is the Proprietor of M/s. Vashisth Roadlines which is subsequently renamed as M/s. Vashisth Roadways engaged in business of commercial transportation. It is the case of the complainant that accused no.5 B.K.Thakur and one Sri S. Sridhar approached the complainant to do work of commercial transportation of Sponge Iron Lumps. Sponge Iron Fines, Char-coal Fines, Sponge Iron, Sponge Iron Fines etc. It was assured that complainant would get Rs. 19,500/- as transportation upon receipt of materials and final payment would be made on the basis of weekly account. The complainant has further alleged that between 10th July, 2007 to 31st March, 2008, the complainant has carried out transportation work but out of total bills, Rs. 4,73,317.60 was not paid to the complainant causing wrongful loss to him. Later on, on verbal assurance, the complainant continued to work and up to 23.01.2008, the total outstanding becomes to Rs. 44,21,655.51. The complainant has further alleged that though the accused persons have deducted Rs. 10,60,195/- towards T.D.S. but nothing was paid to the complainant. It has been lastly alleged that the total outstanding against the accused persons comes to Rs. 52,45,000/- which is not yet paid to him and as such, an offence under Section 406/420/34 I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons.

5. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 is Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Bihar Sponge and Iron Limited and is also Director of about 22 companies situated at different parts of the country and also outside India. He submits that the petitioner no. 2 is Chief Executive of Bihar Sponge Iron Limited and the petitioner no. 3 is Chief Finance Officer of Bihar Sponge Iron Limited. He further draws the attention of the Court to the complaint petition and submits that the case is arising out of an agreement of transportation of certain goods. He submits that in the solemn affirmation it has been admitted by the complainant that upto 2007 payment has been made and for 2008 part payment has been made and thereafter no payment was made. He submits that the dispute arose between the parties because one of the truck article was misappropriated by the driver of the O.P. No.2. He submits that there is no case of inducement of very beginning and this case is fully covered in the light of judgment in “Vir Prakash Sharma V. Anil Kumar Agarwal” (2007) 7 SCC 373 wherein para 8 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;-

“8. The dispute between the parties herein is essentially a civil dispute. Non-payment or underpayment of the price of the goods by itself does not amount to commission of an offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. No offence, having regard to the definition of criminal breach of trust contained in Section 405 of the Penal Code can be said to have been made out in the instant case. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads, thus:

“405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law pre