IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prima facie evidence of criminal intent before taking cognizance of a case and the relevance of contractual obligations in determining criminal liability.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel assisted by Mrs. Nanda Kumari, the learned vice counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Mr. Anurag Kashyap, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance dated 28.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1-4070 of 2014, pending in the court of learned S.D.J.M., Jamshedpur.

3. The case has been filed alleging therein that the opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition on 07.02.2014 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jamshedpur, vide complaint case no. 427 of 2014 and the same has been sent to the Officer Incharge of Golmuri Police Station to register the First Information Report under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon which the F.I.R. has been instituted as Golmuri P.S. case no. 51 of 2014 on section 406 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code 02.03.2014 against the petitioner. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the running a firm under the name and style of and complainant Madan Lal Agarwal Civil Engineers Contractors having its office at Shop no. 13 Golmuri Bazaar, Jamshedpur and the accused being Promoter and Developer of M/s. Om Sai Promoter having its office at Enclave, ME School Road, Mahavir Jugsalai, Jamshedpur to which the complainant agreed and submitted quotation. After approval of quotation of the complainant, the complainant started dismantling the old structure over the proposed constructed area and invested Rs. 56, 53,305.48 and the accused has paid Rs. 17 Lakhs to the complainant till date and Rs. 39,53,305.48 is due against the accused while complainant entrusted the aforesaid amount at the proposed building on the assurance that the accused will pay it to the complainant. The complainant borrowed the material like rod, bricks, sand and other building material from different shops and persons and invested the same in the said multi storied building which is still under construction as Mahavir Enclave. It was alleged that the complainant on so many occasions requested the accused to pay the same but he on the pretext of other grounds took time and lastly on 25.01.2015 refused to pay the same. For this the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused 27.01.2014 through registered post but the accused has neither paid the amount nor gave any reply. Hence, the instant case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint case being Complaint Case No.427 of 2014 was sent for registration of the FIR under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and pursuant to that the learned court has been pleased to transfer the same under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for investigation. He submits that the police has investigated the matter and submitted final form saying that the case is civil in nature. He submits that on protest petition, the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance. By way of referring the complaint petition, he submits that in the complaint petition itself there is admission of receiving Rs.17 lacs wherein the allegation is made that total amount has not been paid. He submits that the O.P.No.2 is sub-contractor appointed by the petitioner and he submits that in the complaint itself it has been disclosed that the said apartment is being constructed. He further submits that if any case is made out that is civil in nature and in view of that the learned court on protest petition has taken cognizance which is bad in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of Mr. Robert John D’Souza and Others v. Mr. Stephen v. Gomes and Another, 2015 (4) East Cr. Cases 16 (SC).

5. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that the learned court has rightly taken cognizance as the police has not investigated the matter in its right perspectiv