IMPORTANT POINT
A mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless there is evidence of fraudulent intent or deception at the inception of the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

2. Mr. Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 namely Arjun Prasad has left for his heavenly abode in view of that he is not pressing this petition so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. He submits that now this petition is confined for the petitioner No. 2 namely Ashwini Kumar @ Ashwini Kr. Parwata.

3. Prayer in this petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 12.08.2016, in connection with C. Case No. 01 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

4. The complaint case was lodged by the O.P. No. 2 alleging therein that he was having twelve trailer vehicles which was given on rent to the petitioner no.1 who is a transporter and he was having contract with JSPL and was to transport steel from Balkudra JSPL to Patratu railway siding. One agreement was executed in between the petitioner no.1 and the complainant and one verbal agreement was also made for transportation at the rate of 90,000 per month for each trailer. The complainant plied his vehicle under petitioner no. 1 and amount of Rs. 22,000 was to be taken by the complainant from the petitioner no.1 as the complainant had plied his vehicle for one year and the rest amount was paid by the petitioner no.1 when the complainant demanded Rs. 22,84,000 the petitioner no.1 used to make excuses. On 21/06/2016 at about 4 P.M. the complainant went to the house of the accused person for taking the money which was due. On which both the accused persons abused and assaulted the complainant. One witness Kailash Prasad Yadav was also with the complainant and they raised alarm on which persons of the locality assembled there and one Binod Kumar intervened into the matter and the complainant managed to save his life hence the complaint petition was filed on 23.06.2016 as the police failed to lodge FIR.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No. 1 was awarded the contract by the Railways for transporting the steel and the complainant was hired for transportation of the said steel. He submits that a sum of Rs. 56,30,100/- was paid, in spite of that the complaint case was filed. He further submits that the petitioner No. 2 is not liable, as if any agreement was there, that was with the petitioner No. 1, who has left for his heavenly abode. He submits that the settlement has reached between the parties and to buttress his arguments, he refers to the settlement contained in Annexure-3. He further submits that the said settlement has been made between three of the partners of the firm and it was decided that the Santosh Kumar will be paid and only five lacs will be paid to the complainant. He further submits that Amarjeet Singh, who is the complainant, has already received a sum of Rs. 56,30,100/- and to buttress his arguments, he refers to the statements of the transactions, as contained at Page-25 of the petition with effect from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012. He submits that in view of the deed of agreement, Santosh Kumar was required to pay, however, in connivance with the complainant, the Vinod Kumar and Santosh Kumar have become the witness in the complaint petition. On these grounds, he submits that if any case is made out, that is civil in nature and no criminal case is made out, as such, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the case is arising out of the complaint case and the learned court has been pleased to take cognizance on the said complaint petition.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the allegations are there of not paying the amount in question, as such, the case is made out. He submits that the allegation of assault is also there, i