Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. Heard Sri Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri D.K. Misra and I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the opposite party no.2 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at Delhi and Head Office at Block 54, Sanjay Place, Agra. The applicant company is also incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Thane (Maharashtra).

3. As per paragraph-2 of the complaint, the applicant herein and Sri Rahul Sukumar Shah (son of the applicant herein) came to the office of the complainant-opposite party no.2 at Agra and demanded loan and gave assurance that they have well understood the terms and conditions and the rules and further assured that all the instalments shall be paid in time. A loan of Rs.70,00,000/- was sanctioned by the opposite party no.2 on 1.8.2013. The accused-applicant assured the opposite party no.2 for payment of loan under the agreement executed on 1.8.2013.

4. It is alleged in paragraph-4 of the complaint that the accused were having deceitful intention from the very beginning and to gain trust of the opposite party no.2, they initially, paid certain instalments and thereafter, they did not pay any single penny and thus, they cheated the opposite party no.2.

5- It is stated in paragraph-6 of the complaint that in their evil design to do so and to cause loss to the opposite party no.2 by cheating, the accused Rahul Sukumar fled away to Canada. It is stated in paragraph-7 of the complaint that on 21.5.2014 at about 1.00 p.m. two persons came at the office of the opposite party no.2 and said that the accused-applicant has sent the message that the opposite party no.2 should not make any effort either to recover the loan or to initiate any legal proceeding and if the opposite party no.2 does so, then he has to face dire consequences. Further allegations have made in paragraph-8 of the complaint for cheating and breach of trust.

6. The statements under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded which supported the complaint version. On these facts the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No.4), Agra, passed the impugned summoning order dated 12.4.2016 in Complaint Case No.1861 of 2014 (S.E. Investment Ltd. Vs. M/s Texplast and others), under Section 420 I.P.C., P.S. Hari Parvat, district Agra, whereby the applicant and his son Sri Rahul Sukumar have been summoned under section 420 I.P.C.

7. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per hypothecation/loan agreement dated 1.8.2013 entered between the applicant and the opposite party no.2, a sum of Rs.70,00,000/- was given as loan by the opposite party no.2 to M/s. Taxplast Industries Ltd., the applicant and Sri Rahul Sukumar. It is submitted that as per Clause-22 of the agreement, the Courts at New Delhi subject to arbitration clause, have exclusive jurisdiction in the event of any disputes and differences arising between the parties. It is submitted that it is a civil dispute and, therefore, the impugned proceedings of complaint case is merely an abuse of the process of Court. He submits that the opposite party no.2 has tried to convert the civil dispute in criminal case.

8. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.P. Srivastava v. Indian Explosive Ltd. and others, 2010 (10) SCC 361 (Paragraph no.26), the judgment of this Court in the case of K.L. Agarwal, Ashok Agrawal, Arun Agarwal v. State of U.P. and another, 2016 (11) ADJ 808 (Paragraph Nos. 15,17 and 24) and the judgment in the case of M/s. Ankur Steel Corporation v. M/s Ashoka Merchantile Limited, (2016)5 ADJ 141 (paragraph no.7).

9. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite no.2 submits that in the present set of facts, the offence under section 420 I.P