The central legal point established in the judgment is that when a matter appears to be civil in nature, the informant's lack of diligence in pursuing the case and the absence of prima facie materials for taking cognizance can lead to the quashing of the entire criminal proceeding and F.I.R. under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel informed the Court that the opposite party no. 2 has taken the file from him two years back and he has no instruction to argue the case and it was observed by the Court that O.P. No. 2 is required to make alternative arrangement to pursue the case on his behalf and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned.

2. Today when the matters were taken up nobody responded on behalf of O.P. No. 2 accordingly, these matters are being heard on merit.

3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Priya Shrestha and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State.

4. In both the petitions common facts are involved and similar F.I.R. and cognizance have been challenged hence, both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties.

5. In Cr.M.P. No. 1497 of 2016 prayer has been made for quashing of F.I.R. arising out of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 as well as entire criminal proceeding and in Cr.M.P. 2162 of 2016 prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including cognizance order dated 06.08.2016 passed in Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 pending in the court concerned.

6. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that for the last 20 years, the informant is engaged in work of soil dwelling and loading of soil and since 2007 he was working with M/s Megotia Construction Private Limited at the rate of Rupees 65 Cubic Meter and Railway Work at the rate of 100 Cubic Meter. Since in the year, 2002 the informant worked at Dalbhumgarh Canal No. 47 and 48 and Sunder Nagar Canal No. 17 and 29 and Railway third line at Adityapur and the cost incurred was to the tune of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. It is alleged that in the year, 2012 for work of soil loading and levelling in the company of the petitioners only the vehicles were used and the rest of the expenses such as oil and tyre were borne by petitioners and when the informant demanded money against the work done by him they had assured to pay it but for last one year whenever the informant demanded his money they used to abuse him and threatened him of dire consequences and also retained his Hywa Trucks bearing Registration No. HR 67A 3639, HR 67A 3684 and JCB bearing Registration No. HR 67 A 2651 for last 14-15 months and whenever he demanded his money and vehicles they used to abuse him and also threatened to kill. The installment of vehicles are not being deposited in Bank. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged.

7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits the petitioners are working as contractors and they have been awarded certain works by the Railways and subsequently, the petitioners have taken work from the informant to execute tender in question. He further submits that the allegations are for recovery of Rs. 1,39,51,194/- and further allegation is that two Hywa vehicle and one J.C.B. of the informant have been kept by these petitioners. He further submits that by writing letter dated 28.11.2014 and 18.03.2015 the petitioners have informed the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Jadugora police station, East Singhbhum about the intentionally parking the said Hywa vehicles and J.C.B. by the informant in the premises of the petitioners. It has also mentioned therein that informant is not coming to take the said vehicles and the said vehicles are lying there. He further submits that recovery of amount in question, legal notice has been exchanged between the parties by way of Annexure-5 and 6 of Cr.M.P. No. 1497 of 2016. He further submits that in first legal notice only a sum of Rs. 86,06,457/- was claimed by the informant however, in subsequent legal notice informant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. He further submits that for recovery of said amount informant has moved before the Assistant Com