JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 482. Cr. P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13th April, 1988 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 420/34 IPC by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 24th February, 1988 a report was lodged by one Ravi Kumar alleging that he is running a shop in the name of Ravi Studio and Electronics in Ramganj Mandi and is carrying on the business of selling television sets also. His allegation is that accused Om Prakash came to his shop on 21st January, 1988 and expressed his desire to purchased a television. He selected one television set make `Crown which was costing Rs. 3.800/-. He wanted to take it on credit which was refused to him Thereafter, it is said that he wanted the same to be taken on approval Therefore, he gave the television set to him on approval On the same day his brother Hari Prakash, Advocate came to him and told him that his brother wants a bill of the television set and that on receipt of the bill the amount would be sent immediately. He, therefore, relying on him, gave a bill also and waited for him to come, but he d d not come. He made repeated requests to the accused but they neither returned the television nor made the payment rather refused to do either and as a consequence of which he filed this report on which Police Station, Ramganj Mandi registered a case for offences under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. This case was registered initially only against Om Prakash After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Ramganj Mandi against Om Prakash and also his brother Hari Prakash, Advocate for offences order Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and it is against that order that this, petition has been filed praying t the order of taking cognizance is an abuse of process of the Court and the e may be quashed. 3. 3. Since this Court was, prima facie, satisfied with the arguments at the admission state recorded the following order:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case can better be settled out of Court if the entire amount of T.V. along with interest is paid to the complainant. He also submits that this is a case of civil nature and criminal complaint has been filed in order to pressurise compromise. He is still prepared to negotiate and ready and willing to pay the price alongwith the interest. Let a notice be issued to the complainant returnable within two weeks. Put up on 24-5-88 for admission. Notice should indicate that complainant should also remain present in person. Meanwhile the record of the case be also called for." 4. Thus, the notice was given to the complaint for remaining present in person in Court. This notice was issued with a view that litigation should be tailed in the matters like the present one and substantial justice may be done and when the accused, even after lodging the criminal case against him in a case to civil nature, was ready and willing to pay the money, the wastage of time, any and energy of the complainant of perusing this remedy in the civil Court Id be avoided. But the complainant, despite the service of the notice on him was failed to appear before this Court to ensure whether the proper service was effected on him or not, I have tried to verify it from the other records also and and from the order-sheet of the subordinate Court dated both May, 1988 that on ibis date the complainant was present in the Court in person and in his presence, lie order of this Court dated 5tb May, 1988 (quoted above) was placed on record and the prayer for remitting the record was made. Thus, the entire facts of the petition pending in this Court are presumed to be in the knowledge of the complainant. Ravi Prakash and despite that he is absent. Hence, proceed to decide this application even in his absence. Otherwise also, in a State case it was not essential to issue a notice to the complainant because it was the State who was prosecuting the accused in the case. Ravi Prakash and despite that he is absent. Hence, proceed to decide this application even in his absence. Otherwise also, in a State case it was not essential to issue a notice to the complainant because it was the State who was prosecuting the accused in the case. Notice was only issued by me yet with another purpose that he could be made aware of the fact of accused's desire of payment of the television set along with 12% interest till date to be calculated from the date of filing the complaint. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Trilok Singh v. Satya Dev Tripathi, (AIR 1979 Supreme Court 850) wherein the dispute between the parties was relating to purchase of truck in pursuance of a hire purchase agreement. According to the agreement, on default of payment of any one instalment, finance was given aright to terminate the agreement without notice and seize the truck The truck was forcibly seized on which the loaned had filed a complaint alleging that blank forms had been got signed. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court holding the proceedings to be of civil nature, quashed the proceedings and held that initiation of such proceedings art clearly abuse of the process of the Court In the light of the aforesaid judgment if the present case is looked into, the action of Ravi Kumar in approaching the police and the Investigating Officer's filing the charge-sheet is clearly an abuse of process of the Court in as much as the matter principally is of civil nature and one fact is enough to conclude it without making the judgment lengthy and giving other reasoning. The petitioners allegation hat a bill was called on the same day on the pretext that money will folio immediately and is being brought is negatived by the document itself. The original bill which has been placed on record clearly has a mention of the ward `credit which indicates that the television was initially given on credit but the dispute has subsequently dropped up for one reason or the other. The original bill which has been placed on record clearly has a mention of the ward `credit which indicates that the television was initially given on credit but the dispute has subsequently dropped up for one reason or the other. Ha.i it been given an approval, possible a memo of approval would have been prepared by the dealer as the normal practice is and signatures of the person taking on approval would have been taken there. But the absence of the words cash memoor `approval rules out the possibility of any criminal intention on the part of the accused on the date when the complainant parted with the possession of the television set. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code and one of the essential ingredients is playing deception on the person who parts with the custody of the property. As stated above, this ingredient is missing and is evidence from the word `credit appearing on the original document. It is also important to note that along with this credit memo, the guarantee card had also been banded over to the accused as is found on the record. There was no question of forwarding the guarantee card along with a credit memo unless the television set was meant to be given on credit. Therefore, I am not prepared to accept the story given by the complainant. May be some dispute might have cropped in letter on either because of not paying the money in a lump sum or default in making the payment of instalments, if they might have been settled, whatever may be the reason, it is clear that in the circumstances of the case, dishonest intention cannot be inferred. In this view of the matter, the proceedings deserve to be quashed and the same are hereby quashed. 7. Before parting with this case, this Court asked the counsel for the accused to make the payment of the television set along with interest to the complainant in the interest of justice and as good gesture to avoid the civil proceedings as they had offered initially when the notice was issued and it is agreed upon also by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 3,800/- as the principal amount of the television and Rs. 8. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs. 3,800/- as the principal amount of the television and Rs. 228/- as interest for six months on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% making a total of Rs 402/- in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi. One months time is granted for depositing the money which shall be paid to the complainant after notice to him. This amount is an amount towards the sale price of the television along with interest. If the complainant, for one reason or the other, refuses to accept the payment within a period of three months from the date of deposit which shall not be later than one month in any case, the money shall be refunded to the accused petitioner. If the money is not deposited within a period of one month, this amount shall be recoverable as an amount of fine from the petitioner, Television shall be returned to the accused-petitioners.Application allowed. *******