Hon’ble Anil Kumar Sharma, J.—The applicant has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in Misc. Case No. 141 of 2014 Rajesh Yadav v. Vinod Aggarwal, arising out of case crime No. 182 of 2014 under Section 406 and 420 IPC P.S. Sector-24 NOIDA, District Gautam Budh Nagar as also to quash the entire proceedings of the case.

2. It appears that the O.P. No. 2, as Director of Progressive Shelters Pvt. Ltd (PSPL) filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. against the applicant, who is admittedly one of the directors of BLS Infrastructure Ltd., and 19-others for commission of offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, whereupon an FIR was registered under the orders of the Magistrate on 18.3.2013 in P.S. Sector-24 NOIDA. However, after investigation, the police filed final report, which was objected to by opposite party through protest petition dated 30.4.2014 and the learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 9.6.2014 allowing the protest petition had rejected the final report and has taken cognizance under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr. P.C. against the applicant, his brothers Vinod Aggarwal and Diwakar Aggarwal, son Karan Aggarwal and 4 others for commission of offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 IPC. Only the applicant has come up to challenge the aforesaid impugned order as also the entire proceedings of the criminal case arising out of crime No. 182 of 2013.

3. Indisputably after registration of the FIR aforesaid at the instance of opposite party No. 2, the applicant, Vinod Aggarwal, Diwakar Aggarwal, Karan Aggarwal and Suresh Mehta filed Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5925 of 2013 for the following reliefs :

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report registered vide crime No. 182 of 2013, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506/34 I.P.C. dated 18.3.2013 lodged by respondent No. 3.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 and his subordinate officials not to arrest or harass the petitioners in pursuance of the order directing the further investigation in the case.

III. Issue any other writ, direction or order or grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

IV. Award costs of the petition to the petitioners.

4. A division bench of the Court vide order 24.4.2013 refused to quash the impugned FIR as prima facie commission of cognizable offence was found and there was no legal bar in lodging of the FIR. However, considering the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that on account of contractual dispute, the impugned FIR had been lodged, the petition was disposed of with the directions that the petitioners will not be arrested in the above mentioned case till the credible evidence is not collected by the I. O. during investigation in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr LJ 1981.

5. It is not disputed that tender for improvement and up gradation of 28 Government school buildings in Delhi was awarded by the DSIIDC, Delhi Government to accused company i. e. BLS Sumer JV, who in turn engaged the complainant’s (O.P. No. 2) company to execute the work and for this purpose MOU was signed. It was alleged in the FIR that JV Company approached OP No. 2 at his NOIDA office through its authorised signatory intimating about the grant of aforesaid contract through letter of acceptance dated 1.10.2009 accepting their tender dated 4.9.2009. Subsequently one of the Directors of the JV Company namely Sri Vinod Aggarwal met OP No. 2 at his NOIDA office as representative of his company and giving details of the contract expressed desire to sublet the contrac