IMPORTANT POINT
The court quashed the FIR and related proceedings, determining that the allegations were civil in nature and subject to arbitration, not criminal prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Shiv Shankar Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 21.02.2019, whereby, Complaint Case No.1326 of 2018 was transmitted for lodging of FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and for quashing the FIR being Telaiya P.S. Case No.109/2019 registered under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma. The cognizance was taken on 10.05.2023 during the pendency of this petition, which was challenged by way of filing I.A. No.7774 of 2023 and the same was allowed vide order dated 29.09.2023. In view of that, the order taking cognizance dated 10.05.2023 is also under challenge in this petition.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant company is engaged in the business of sales, spares and service support of the petitioner company's construction equipment since 2015. It was alleged that in terms of the offer letter dated 17.03.2015 spelling out specific details Dealer Agreement dated 18.05.2016 was executed appointing the complainant as a Dealer. It was further alleged that the complainant gave bank guarantee of Rs.100 Lakhs and also paid Rs.22,50,000/-through RTGS to the petitioner company. It was also alleged that the complainant acted in terms with the agreement, but the petitioner company has cheated the complainant and induced him to enter into the development agreement. It was alleged that petitioner no.2 had assured the complainant that he will be getting interest on Rs.1 Crore deposited on 30.09.2015 and in spite of mails, interest has not been credited to complainant's account. It was further alleged that the complainant was not provided with Dealership agreement and only after repeated reminders on 03.07.2018, copy of the same was made available. It was also alleged that the complainant had been assured to be given Dealership for Jharkhand too and initially invoices for Jharkhand were also raised in 2015. It was further alleged that not giving copy of Dealer agreement, denying Dealership of Jharkhand and not crediting interest on the Security amount is cheating on part of the petitioner company. It was also alleged that wrong invoice has been created by the petitioner company inasmuch as machine which was manufactured a year ago was supplied to the complainant to supply to customer which the customer has refused to take causing loss to the complainant. It was further alleged that on 30.03.2018, the complainant received a mail mentioning the area of operation of the complainant as only few areas in Bihar. It was alleged that machines of Rs.1,75,00,000/-and spare parts of Rs.80,00,000/-are lying in the office of the complainant. It was alleged that on account of wrong billing the complainant received a notice under Jharkhand VAT Act, 2015 dated 18.01.2018 from the Commercial Taxes Department, Government of Jharkhand. It was further alleged that the accused persons have completely failed to conform to the terms and conditions agreed between the parties and had intention to cheat from the beginning and thereby the accused are liable to be punished under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that earlier the complainant had lodged Complaint Case No.1326 of 2018 on 03.10.2018, which was sent by the learned Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and subsequently FIR being Telaiya P.S. Case No.109 of 2019 was lodged. Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the complaint, the complainant has alleged that he was not given the dealership agreement and he has not been given dealership for Jharkhand though the petitioner c