Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The applicants, by means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have prayed for quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.5870 of 2010, Ram Singh Vs. Nitin Jain and others, under Section 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Ghaziabad, as well as the summoning order dated 05.02.2011. The applicants have also challenged the order dated 25.06.2010 whereby the learned Magistrate has treated the application moved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as complaint.

Brief facts as emanate from perusal of the records reflect that opposite party no.2 Ram Singh moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, who in trun made over the case for proper disposal to the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.6, Ghaziabad. The learned Magistrate after hearing the complainant-opposite party no.2 on merits of the application, directed vide his order dated 25.06.2010 that the application so moved is to be treated as a complaint. Thereafter the learned Magistrate proceeded to record statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively. After hearing the complainant-opposite party no.2 on merits, learned Magistrate vide his order dated 05.02.2011 summoned the present applicants under Sections 420, 406, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, the applicants have moved the instant application praying for quashing of the proceedings of complaint case (5870 of 2010), consequent summoning order dated 05.02.2011 and the order dated 25.06.2010 whereby learned Magistrate treated the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint case.

I have heard respective submissions of both the sides and perused the record of the case as available on file.

The basic thrust of the argument advanced on behalf of the applicants is confined to the point that the complainant-opposite party no.2 Ram Singh moved false application after concealing material and relevant facts relating to the actual transaction that took place between the two Companies of the applicants as well as of the complainant-opposite party no.2. The dispute is basically of civil nature and it has been deliberately categorized as a criminal offence. Opposite party no.2 cannot be allowed to mischievously embark on criminal proceeding by imputing criminal intent on the part of the applicants, whereas, opposite party no.2 without any basis and out of vengeance, has concocted altogether false story of assault being caused to him at the hands of the applicants and has deliberately tried to conceal the material facts regarding full and final payment made by the applicant-Company and accepted by the son of opposite party no.2 say Jagdish Prasad, who projected himself to be the proprietor of M/s Turning Engineering Company.

Learned counsel for the applicants has further submitted that no relevant papers have been brought on record which may justify the claim of the complainant-opposite party no.2 and which may reveal the very manner of committing forgery in the record of the complainant-Company. No worth papers have been produced that may give inference to allegation that the actual payment stood to Rs.33,18,685 instead of Rs.14,65,569.20. He further submitted that in absence of details and particulars regarding the very manner of committing fraud, the only fact that comes out, shows shrewdness in cleverly drafting of complaint by the opposite party no.2 by misusing the process of law.

At this stage, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has vehemently submitted that the actual outstanding liability stood to Rs.33,18,685/-, whereas, the applicants committed forgery and paid only Rs.14,65,569.20 towards the service utilized by the