Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.: The challenge by way of this criminal miscellaneous application is to the order of cognizance dated 16.3.2005 passed by 2nd Additional Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1914/2004, Sunil Kumar v. Pioneer Paints & Chemicals and Others. In this order of cognizance, the applicant Shri Pradosh Kumar Awasthi and one Shri T.K. Awasthi were summoned for the offences of section 420/120B IPC.

2. This application under section 482 CrPC has been moved only by Shri Pradosh Kumar Awasthi, while Shri T.K. Awasthi has not filed any petition against the order of cognizance.

3. It appears that one Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, private respondent no. 2 in the petition carries the business of supply of lime under the title M/s Vigyan Lime Company based at Dehradun, while the applicant Shri Pradosh Kumar Awasthi runs his company under the title M/s Pioneer Paints & Chemicals, Devpur, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. The applicant for the manufacturing of paints and chemicals needed supply of lime, so he along with his father Shri T.K. Awasthi (whose real name has been stated in the affidavit annexed with the petition as Shri Karuna Shankar Awasthi) contacted the complainant for supply of lime. The business contacts were established between the two. The complainant supplied the lime from time to time as per request made by the applicant. The letters were exchanged several times between the two on the question of default of payment as well as the quality of the goods which were so supplied. These differences led to the filing of a complaint by Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta against the applicant and his father besides the company M/s Pioneer Paints & Chemicals in its corporate capacity as accused no. 1. The statement of Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta was recorded on 10.2.2005 under Section 200 CrPC and statement of another witness Vikash Gupta (real nephew of complainant) also got recorded on 3.3.2005 under section 202 CrPC and Magistrate by way of this impugned order expressed his prima facie satisfaction and was of the opinion that a case has been made out against the accused persons for the offences and took cognizance as aforementioned. This order was challenged by way of this miscellaneous application.

4. I have heard learned Counsels of both the parties and perused the record.

5. Learned Counsel of the applicant has relied upon a Supreme Court judgment rendered in V.Y. Jose & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (2009) 3 SCC 78, wherein it was held that when a case essentially involves a civil dispute, then the High Court has the duty under section 483 CrPC to supervise functioning of the trial courts and for that purpose section 482 CrPC serves a salutary purpose that a person could not undergo harassment of litigation even though no criminal case has been made out against him. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that when a matter which essentially involves a dispute of civil nature should not be allowed to become the subject matter of criminal proceedings which may be resorted to as a shortcut to execution of a non-existent decree. In the said case complaint was filed alleging cheating whereas the case in fact involved the civil dispute relating to a contract. Then Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its power under section 482 CrPC.

6. Learned Counsel of the applicant has strenuously argued that the instant case is squarely covered with the law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court (supra) because both the complainant and the accused are the businessmen. They entered into a transaction in pursuance of a contract/agreement. The complaint/respondent no. 2 supplied the lime under the agreement. Payment was made to him but there was the default in the full payment which is being reflected from so many letters annexed with the counter affidavit as well as rejoinder affidavit of either parties. It is also being reflected that more than Rs. 50,000/- were not pa