ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE two criminal revisions being No. 1084 of 1993 and No. 1085 of 1993 are tried together in analogous since the parties ate almost identical, facts and circumstances are the same and also involved the same question, of law. The revisional application No. 1085 of 1993, is directed the order dated 12-2-93 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah in G. R. Case No. 85/1991 whereby he framed a charge against the accused petitioner under Section 420, I. P. C. In revisional application No. 1084 of 1993 prayer has been made to quash the proceeding being G. R. Case No. 828/90 pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah. ( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this proceedings in the Lower Court are identical in nature. The petitioners are respectively the Proprietor and Manager of M/s. Model Engineering Works. They had business relation with M/s. Ma. Durga Foundry since 1960. In course of business, transaction the petitioner's firm used to make payments by account payee cheque, the last being on 20-10-87. Therefore, the said Foundry was closed for considerable period from May, 1987. There was no business transaction after 14th April, 1987. On 28-12-87, they received a registered envelope from the said Foundry which was found to contain one blank paper. They accordingly informed the Foundry by letter dated 28-12-87 in respect that they issued a registered letter dated 4-1-88 alleging that their bill for Rs. 35, 168. 58 remains unpaid. On 30-1-88, they denied the alleged view. Thereafter, they send a registered letter dated 13-4-88 alleging that inspite of joint sitting between the parties in the office of a Solicitors on 5-4-88 no payment was made. They further demanded the payment of said sum within the fortnight. The petitioners again replied by letter dated 28-5-88, denying the alleged meeting and also the dues. By letter dated 29-7-88 again demanded the said sum stating that one Biswajit had received the goods on behalf of the petitioners. On 21-4-90, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Bantra Police Station took the petitioners in the custody on the basis of a G. D. Entry and at the Police Station they found a partner of M/s. Ma. Durga Foundry. Petitioners were forced to sign a cheque for Rs. 35,168. 58. by holding out the threat of putting them in the lockup. On 21-4-90, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Bantra Police Station took the petitioners in the custody on the basis of a G. D. Entry and at the Police Station they found a partner of M/s. Ma. Durga Foundry. Petitioners were forced to sign a cheque for Rs. 35,168. 58. by holding out the threat of putting them in the lockup. The petitioners have to surrender before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Howrah on 28-4-90 in connection with Bantra Police Case No. 47/90 and was released on bail. Subsequently, they filed a case against the Sub-Inspector and the others and the said case is pending, being 820-C of 1990. The cheque issued by them was not however encashed as per instruction given to the bankers. Subsequently, they complained of non-payment and there was some correspondence between the two sides. On 18-7-90 an application was tiled before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah which was send to the P. S. for treating it as F. I. R. against the present petitioners under Section 420/120-B, I. P. C. The said proceeding has been sought to be quashed stating that the complaint did not disclosed any offence as alleged and that the dispute is of civil nature. ( 3 ) THE other revisional application which arises out of G. R. Case No. 85 of 1991 was instituted on the basis of the petition of complaint for refusal to make the payment for the bills submitted by M/s. Ma. Durga Foundry. ( 4 ) I have heard the submissions made by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the petitioners and also the Opposite Party/state, it has been argued on the basis of the xerox copies of the two complaints which were send under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. that the dispute is purely of a civil nature, that the cheque was issued while the petitioners were in custody of Police under threat of being arrested and kept in the lock-up that no offence under Section 420, I. P. C. has been made out, that there is no element of conspiracy. On the other hand, the Ld. P. C. that the dispute is purely of a civil nature, that the cheque was issued while the petitioners were in custody of Police under threat of being arrested and kept in the lock-up that no offence under Section 420, I. P. C. has been made out, that there is no element of conspiracy. On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate appearing for the State, after going through the complaints concedes that the dispute between the parties are absolutely of civil nature as it will appear from the averment of petition of complaint that there were exchange of matters between the two sides, that there are questions of delivery of goods and receipt of the same from the side of the petitioners which are basically questions of facts. He also concedes that the dispute is absolutely of civil nature and there are no element of Section 420/120-B, I. P. C. ( 5 ) I have given my careful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and have gone through the xerox copies of the petition of complaint. It is apparent from the scrutiny of the same that there are business transaction between the two sides and there is the question of non-payment due to certain Article, alleged to have been supplied by M/s. Ma. Durga Foundry to the petitioners which have been denied by the latter. While the petitioners case is that they had made all the payments, it is the contention of de facto-complainant as appears from the petition of complaint that some amount is still outstanding. There is also allegation that there were joint sitting between the parties and the consensus arrived at such sittings has not been honoured by the petitioners. This being the position and the dispute between the parties, there is no question of cheating or criminal conspiracy. It is the admitted position that there were business dealings between the parties spreading over a breach of long time. The ingredients of Section 420 or 120-B, I. P. C. are absolutely wanting in the impugned cases. It also appears on the face of it that the issuance of cheque was at a period of time when the petitioners were in the custody of Police and as such the question of exerting pressure for signing the cheque cannot be ruled out. A specific case and said allegation appears to be pending between the parties. It also appears on the face of it that the issuance of cheque was at a period of time when the petitioners were in the custody of Police and as such the question of exerting pressure for signing the cheque cannot be ruled out. A specific case and said allegation appears to be pending between the parties. Accordingly, as the petition of complaint do not disclose any cognizable offence, continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of such complaints cannot stand. As such the said proceeding must be quashed. Accordingly, the G. R. Case No. 85/91 and the G. R. Case No. 828/90 pending before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Howrah stands quashed. The revisional applications are accordingly allowed. These judgements shall govern both the criminal revisional eases noted above. Revisions allowed.