IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes, and the absence of fraudulent intent negates charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entre criminal proceeding arising out of Dhanbad (Dhansar) P.S. Case No.965 of 2014, G.R. No.4477 of 2014, including the order taking cognizance dated 24.07.2015 pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad.

3. The complaint case has been filed which was sent under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging therein that O.P.No.2 is a transporter carrying business of M/s Maa Biswanath & Co., Dhanbad. The O.P.No.2 was placed with an order by one M/s Jobby Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Mumbai to employ 7 nos. of Hywa (Tata Tipper) from Dhori Kalyani Project, Bokaro through its General Manager on 1.10.2013. In response to the same, the O.P.No.2 deployed 7 nos. of Hywa in said work and agreed to pay Rs.1,45,000/- per Hywa. Those vehicles employed for transportation and work was only for six months. The petitioner being proprietor with criminal intent induced O.P.No.2 that the work order issued to M/s Jobby Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had left the said work 5 days ago without information. The petitioner in said letter wrote that even under this situation we have to maintain the continuity of work without any loss and time and without any apprehension of not getting the payment and stated that the petitioner made the payment for work executed by the said company till October, 2013 and the payment due or may be payable after Oct.2013, Nov.2013 and Dec.2013 shall also be made by the petitioner. On getting said assurance the O.P.No.2 has employed 7 nos. of Hywa in the work. O.P.No.2 raised bills of Rs.64,12,747/- only from Oct. 2013 to March, 2014. Out of Rs.64,12,747/- the petitioner paid Rs.7,00,000/- on 27.12.2013 and Rs.9,00,000/- on 15.4.2013 through RTGS and total due amount is Rs.48,12,747/-. Petitioner took all responsibility in the said letter dated 22.3.2014 in respect of execution of the said work and the petitioner fraudulently knowing the fact regarding insufficiency of his fund in his bank account issued the three cheques being No.418111 dt. 10.05.2014 for Rs.15,00,000/-, No.418112 dt. 25.5.2014 for Rs.15,00,000/- and no.418113 dt.1.6.2014 for Rs.18,00,000/-.

4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter is of the year 2016 and earlier the interim protection was there, however, the learned court has framed the charge. He submits that if the charge is framed and the case is not made out, the Court can interfere at any stage under section 482 Cr.P.C and to buttress his such argument he relied in the case of Satish Mehra v. State (N.C.T of Delhi) and Another, (2012) 13 SCC 614. Paragraph no.14 of the said judgment is quoted below:

14. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence, there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to be interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognised to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfy the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosec