Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan,J.

Shri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are present.

2. Heard and perused the material on record.

3. The applicant Lalit Kargeti, through this application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 3949/05 (Kishan Chandra and another Vs. Lalit Kargeti), under Section 406, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Ramgarh, District Firozabad, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-I, Firozabad.

4. The brief facts which are requisite for the adjudication of the application are that on 27.8.2004, opposite party no. 2 has placed an order for purchase of Automatic Hydrolic Rim Straightening Machine and one Pneumatic Electrical Tyre Changer and in view of the aforesaid demand, machines were transported to the workshop of the opposite party. The opposite party raised an allegation in the complaint that the said machine has not been functioning properly and not transported in view of the quotation dated 20.8.2004 along with Demand Draft No. 670719 for Rs. 75,000/-. The applicant who is the proprietor of the Unimach Auto Engineering Equipment Pvt. Ltd. fraudulently did not sent the original machine. After recording the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and on being satisfied, the summoning order was issued.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant came up before this court in this application.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no. 2 who is the partner of Venus Automobiles, Near Kotla Chungi, Firozabad approached applicant and sought quotation for purchase of machines from him. The opposite party no. 2 placed an order for purchase of one Automatic Hydrolic Rim Straightening Machine and one Pneumatic Electrical Tyre Changer. The said machine was transported to the opposite party no. 2 and duly installed but after three months with malafide intention, the said machine was sent back. The applicant has not only supplied the best machines, but also replaced the same on the request of the opposite party no. 2 as to retain and maintain good and healthy business relations with him, but the opposite party no. 2 after using the machines for his own gain started claiming the amount of the said machines. The said machines which have been running in perfect conditions and having been utilized by opposite party no. 2 for his business purpose could not be exchanged several times. Rather the applicant who has incurred expenses on account of replacing and re-installing the machines again and again and further more has suffered mental agony and tension. It is further submitted that when the opposite party no. 2 tried to digest the money of the applicant then the applicant on 17.5.2005 has sent a legal notice to the opposite party no. 2 with a prayer to call upon him to withdraw his letter dated 3.5.2005 and all the allegations made therein against the applicant and also to sent a letter of apology within seven days on receipt of this notice failing which the applicant shall be entitled to the claim of Rs. 1 lac as compensation/damages. The opposite party no. 2 on 27.5.2009 replied the notice in a very arbitrary manner. The opposite party no. 2 just to harass the applicant and fulfil his evil desire, filed a complaint at District Firozabad on 14.10.2005 with a vague allegation that the applicant has cheated him. It is also submitted that the matter is purely of civil nature as is there any breach of contract, the parties may approch before the civil court for proper relief and the prosecution is nothing but an abuse of process of the law.

7. The scope and ambit of power under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been examined by Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another, AIR 2003 SC 2612, and observed as follows:

"The grounds on which power under Sec