JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vishal Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 1497/2016 including the order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby, cognizance has been taken under Sections 341, 348 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

3. The complaint case has been filed on 27.06.2016 by opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that he joined in Tinplate Co India Ltd (TCIL) as a Junior Administrative Trainee and worked since then in the said company and at the time of filing complaint posted as Executive Officer at work office of the said company reporting to the present petitioner no. 1. It has further been alleged that he had played a very important role and had been receiving assignment directly from the Managing Director of the Company and reporting to him over the happenings causing loss to the petitioner no. 1, who threatened the O.P. No. 2. On 23.03.2016, petitioner no. 1 held a meeting directing all concerned officers to re-check the vendors bill of the period 2015-2016 so that any mistake detected in the bill may be corrected. After the meeting when O.P. No. 2 came to his office and asked office staff to give vendor’s bill file for re-checking. The O.P. No. 2 was told by office staff that petitioner no. 1-Mr. S. Venkatraman has taken away the bills file. The petitioner no. 1-Mr. S. Venkatraman without knowledge of the O.P. No. 2 get recheck and verified 23 bills of vendor M/s Shree Interiors and one bill of M/s Ramprakash Fabricators and Contractors by Mr. Sailesh Singh. This fact indicates that petitioner no. 1 how far biased with the O.P. No. 2. The O.P. No. 2 came to know that aforesaid bills had earlier been forwarded and counter signed by him. In scrutiny, it was detected that there was calculation mistakes in submitting bills as the calculation was made in square inch instead of square ft. this was the mistakes of the said contractors which could not be detected by O.P. No. 2 earlier while counter signing and forwarding the bills as there was no copy of purchase order attached with the bill nor there was any circular order for direction issued by the management petitioner no. 1 to attach copy of purchase order while submitting bills. O.P. No. 2 had no access to see purchase order and bill certification in SAP system. It was not in his memory or mind that purchase order was made in square ft., and not in square inch. Petitioner no. 1-Mr. S. Venkatraman is only the passing and sanctioning authority of the vendors’ bills and on his direction the bill payment was to be made by account department after further scrutinization. The payment of 23 bills of vendor M/s Shree Interiors had already being made to the vendor on the basis of the passing of the bills and direction of petitioner no. 1- Mr. S. Venkatraman. As such regarding wrong an excess payment of 23 bills to the vendor M/s Shree Interiors, the petitioner no. 1-Mr S. Venkatraman, Bill certifier in SAP system and the account department are only legally liable and responsible person. When this fact came to the knowledge of petitioner no. 1 he directly made contacts with the respective vendors and obtained revised and corrected bill from the vendors without observing formalities of receiving and filing bills. No entry of revised bills was made in centralize bill register maintained by works office. This shows that the petitioner no. 1 has got complicity and nexus with the vendors. The vendors are said to have admitted that it was their calculation mistakes and there was no hand of the complainant in calculation Mistakes being committed in the bills. The petitioner no. 1-Mr.