JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 2.12.2004 and also the entire proceeding in ICC No.68 of 2002 pending in the court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh with the prayer to quash the same under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

FACTS

2. The unravelled story of the prosecution case is that the petitioner joined as Manager in M/s.IDCOL Cement Ltd. in March, 1996 and subsequently w.e.f. 1.3.1998 he was posted as Zonal Manager at Bhubaneswar and was looking after the sales promotion of IDCOL Brand cement. It is alleged, inter alia, that the accused in his full capacity by letter dated 25.11.1998 forwarded the application dated 23.11.1998 of one Amiya Kanta Nayak introducing him as Proprietor of M/s.Nayak Construction, Ballibhagat Road, Buxi Bazar, Cuttack. He had also signed on the copy of the Contractor Licence issued by the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle in the name of Amiya Kanta Nayak along with work order purported to have been awarded the construction work under the Project Engineer, Project Management, Unit-II, Cuttack, Kendrapara, OWS & SB in favour of M/s.Nayak Construction. The petitioner has also intimated that a Bank Draft of Rs.18,000/- was deposited. On 26.12.1998 the accused sent a letter intimating that M/s.Nayak Construction was awarded work at Kakatpur by Executive Engineer, OWS & SB, Cuttack and the requirement of cement for that job was 24000 bags. In order to show the genuineness of such transaction, he sent the letter bearing No.1792 dated 26.12.1998 alleged to have been written by the Project Engineer, Project Management, Unit-I, OWS & SB, Cuttack. Subsequently on 11.1.1999 the petitioner intimated about deposit of Bank Draft and Post-dated cheque along with letter dated 11.1.1999 of the said M/s.Nayak Constructions recommending to supply cement to M/s.Nayak Constructions. Like this, he forwarded letters dated 14.1.1999 and 21.1.1999 purportedly written by Amiya Kanta Nayak. In all the letters, he had sent his recommendation to supply cement. As per the recommendation of the petitioner, cement was being lifted by the authorized person of M/s.Nayak Construction on their own arrangement and Amiyakanta Nayak never personally attended the factory, work office of Idcol Cement. The complainant-company supplied 1381 M.Ts. of cement against M/s.Nayak Construction vide bill raised in between 30.11.1998 to 31.1.2000, but finally Rs.3,22,880/- remained payable by M/s.Nayak Construction. Again when the balance amount was asked to be paid by M/s.Nayak Construction, the petitioner submitted post-dated cheque bearing No.0071418 dated 7.11.2000 for such amount allegedly to have been issued by M/s.Nayak Construction to clear the balance cost. On presentation of such cheque, the Bank of Baroda, Mani Sahu Chhak Branch, Cuttack dishonoured the cheque on the ground “Title of the Account Differs”, meaning that the account number mentioned in the cheque does not belong to Amiya Kanta Nayak. Since the amount was not realized, Civil Suit bearing C.S. No. 25 of 2002 was filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bargarh against Amiya Kanta Nayak as proprietor of M/s.Nayak Construction. Summon was issued in the given address of M/s.Nayak Construction, but the same was returned unserved with the report that no such person or firm exists. The complainant-company searched for the correct address and asked the petitioner to disclose the address, but the petitioner remained silent. In the meantime on thorough search, the Project Engineer, Project Management, Unit-II, Cuttack, Kendrapara, OWS & SB, Cuttack after enquiry informed that work order, letters and signature of the officers were not at all related to the office of M/s.Nayak Construction, which is also not an enlisted contractor.

3. In the meantime, the complainant found that the petitioner deceived the complainant-company fraudulently and induced the complainant-company to deliver cement to his own arranged men and by that he gained hims