JUDGMENT 1. This petition is directed against the order of Shri Gopal Mahto, judicial Magistrate, 1st class Gaya, in Complaint Case No. 306 of 1963/T. R. No. 2064 of 1984 dated 15.1.1983 by which cognizance was taken against the petitioners and ordered for issuance of summons against them. The learned Magistrate has not given what offence under what section was found prima facie against the petitioners. 2. The petitioners known as Jyoti Textiles, Bombay, are cloth merchants and commission agents. They had their regular business transactions with Ratanlal Agrawala at Gaya and one Mangilal Agrawala was agent on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners used to despatch cloth to Ratan Lal Agrawala on credit but after sometimes Ratanlal Agrawala failed to pay the dues and so the supply of cloth was also stopped. The cloth had been supplied through local branch of the Allahabad Bank and Hundis used to be received in the Bank on behalf of Jyoti Textiles, Bombay. The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 2822.26 paise on 28.7.79 but later it was found that the price was increased by Rs. 1,000/-. According to the complaint the price had been intentionally increased and so the excess money was cheated from the complainant by the petitioners causing wrongful gain to the petitioners in the garb of Hundis. 3. Mr. Bharuka, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they had regular business transactions. As the complainant fell in arrears of payment to the tune of more than Rs. 20,000/- an agreement was entered into and arbitrators were appointed and as per award dated 14.3.83 the complainant was required to pay Rs. 23,923,44 paise to the petitioners but it did not. As per the award it was agreed that the complainant would go on paying the price of the cloth in future plus a sum of Rs. 1,000/- to liquidate the arrears. Later the complainant changed his mind and filed the complaint case. 4. Mr. Bharuka further submitted that the whole thing took place in the course of regular business transaction. The award had been entered into as agreed to between the parties which is more in the nature of civil dispute and there is no criminal liability fastened to these transactions. As such the impugned order is bad in law. 5. 4. Mr. Bharuka further submitted that the whole thing took place in the course of regular business transaction. The award had been entered into as agreed to between the parties which is more in the nature of civil dispute and there is no criminal liability fastened to these transactions. As such the impugned order is bad in law. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant opposite party submitted that at this stage the award is not to be looked into as the accused have no locus standi before taking of cognizance. As such the award also can not be looked into; more so it is not known if the said award is genuine or forged. 6. Admittedly, the parties are businessmen. They had their regular business transactions. The complainant has been paying the price through Hundis also and according to the complaint petition on one date a sum of Rs.1,000/- was found to be excess. The local Allahabad Bank Branch has said that the Hundis for a sum of Rs. 4822/- had been received to be paid to the petitioners by the complainant, All these simply go to, show that all these dealings were in the nature of regular business transaction and in my view the proper forum for the complainant was to the court of civil jurisdiction to get his grievance satisfied and there is no criminal liability therein. Accordingly the impugned order is hereby set aside, and the petition stands allowed. Petition allowed.