Judgment Loknath Prasad, J. 1. Heard both the parties. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire Criminal prosecution relating to Complaint Case No. 95 of 1955 pending before Shri Om Prakash Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bermo at Tenughat. 2. The fact in short for the purpose of this application is that the opposite party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint case claiming himself that he was doing a contractual work as a contractor for the petitioners who are senior officers of the Government undertaking, that is, Hindusthan Steel Works Construction Ltd., Kathara. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that after completion of the work, the petitioner wrongly calculated the bill and though there was order of escalation of the rate, but the payment was not made according to the escalated rate and on the basis of the wrong calculation and misrepresentation, payments were made causing loss to the complainant. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code as against the petitioner. 3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that from the entire regarding of the complaint petition, no criminal case is made out because admittedly the petitioners are employees of HSCL under which the complainant took the contract work and if at all there was miscalculation or wrong calculation, then the liability if any is civil. Moreover, the petitioners are still willing to consider the genuine or lawful claim if any and if some claims will be found to be lawful and genuine, the petitioners will definitely clear the dues. It was further contended that the complainant wrongly for the same claims got an Arbitrator appointed from the court of Sub-Judge and the Company preferred a Civil Revision No. 224/94R and that was allowed by this Court, that is, Annexure-3. So it can be said that the prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator was also rejected and observation was made that the parties can agitate before a civil court for redressal of their disputes. The entire allegation as made in the complaint petition clearly indicates that liability, if any, is a contractual liability. So it can be said that the prayer for appointment of an Arbitrator was also rejected and observation was made that the parties can agitate before a civil court for redressal of their disputes. The entire allegation as made in the complaint petition clearly indicates that liability, if any, is a contractual liability. In that view of the matter, the criminal case will not be maintainable and the remedy for the opposite party No. 2 if any is to seek remedy before the appropriate Civil Court. However, in view of the suggestion of the learned lawyer for the petitioner that the petitioner can raise his grievance before the authorities and if the authorities after detailed examination will find the claim to be lawful, if any, then necessary payments will be made. Accordingly, this application is allowed. Therefore complaint Case No. 95/95 pending before Om Prakash Sinha, J. M.is quashed.