Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. All these petitions have been heard together as common questions of law and facts are involved and this order will govern all the aforesaid cases. 2. In all these cases the prayer has been made to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the orders taking cognizance under Secs. 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. All the cases are outcome of complaints filed by the complainant before the C.J.M. Dhanbad alleging, inter alia, that the petitioners do the business of financing vehicles and also financed the complainants personal and commercial dumper. He had prior acquaintenance and intimacy with the petitioner and on 12.9.1994 at about 4 p.m., when the petitioner-accused, along with others, was going from Chirkunda, the complainant out of respect, stopped his motor in order to wish. After exchange of greetings the petitioner discussed about the business with the complainant regarding transporting etc. Further statement in paragraph 4 of the complaint is that during the course of talk the accused put a proposal to the complainant and others that in case, if the complainant and others require and want to purchase L.P.T. 1612 truck chassis, the accused will supply the same within a month, provided they arrange and pay a cash of Rs. 1.5 lacs by tomorrow i.e. by the evening of 13.9.1994. It is alleged that believing the words of the accused, the complainant, his brother and father, however, managed Rs. 1.5 lacs each and handed over the same to the accused in his office at M/s. Kalyaneshwari Priquettes Udyog, Tetulia, Nirsa in presence of the witnesses. They hoped that the accused will keep his word by supplying L.P.T. 1612 truck chassis in due time. At the time of proposal itself it was suggested that non-judicial stamp for executing required agreement would be purchased and as such, the complainant purchased the same and agreement papers were also executed on 13.9.1994 after receiving the entire amount i.e., Rs. 4.50 lacs from the complainant, his brother and father. However, after lapse of one month, when the said chassis was not supplied to them, they met the petitioner several times in his office and residence but he avoided the matter on some pretext or other. 4.50 lacs from the complainant, his brother and father. However, after lapse of one month, when the said chassis was not supplied to them, they met the petitioner several times in his office and residence but he avoided the matter on some pretext or other. The complainant tried to contact the petitioner through letter both registry and under-certificate posting and also made telephonic call but having failed in all fronts, he was compelled to send pleaders notice requesting the petitioner to deliver the said truck chassis or return the money to the complainant. It is stated that in reply to the legal notice, the petitioner gave an evasive reply, which reveals that petitioner-accused had fraudulent intention and also an intention to cheat the complainant. 4. The complainant, Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh had filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad giving rise to Complaint Petition No. 119/97, whereas Shiv Shankar Singh and Ram Shankar Singh had filed their respective complaints before the C.J.M. Dhanbad giving rise to Complaint Petition Nos. 773/96 and 777/96 respectively. The complaints, which were filed before the C.J.M. were sent to the Judicial Magistrate for enquiry and after conclusion of enquiry under Secs. 192/202 Cr.P.C. and scrutinising the statements of the witnesses on solemn affirmation, the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case is made out and summoned the accused-petitioners. 5. Mr. Bajaj, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has contended that from bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint, it would be clear that it is a pure case of civil nature, for which no criminal proceeding should be allowed to continue. His further grievance is that the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason whatsoever for taking cognizance of the offence. His argument is that the learned Magistrate should have considered that there was delay of more than 2 years in filing the complaints and this delay itself indicates that the complainants have filed the complaints with an oblique motive. According to him, the petitioner himself has filed a money suit against the complainant which will give a clear picture that there was some disputes of civil nature between the complainant and the petitioner and the complainant has dragged the petitioner unnecessarily in this criminal case. According to him, the petitioner himself has filed a money suit against the complainant which will give a clear picture that there was some disputes of civil nature between the complainant and the petitioner and the complainant has dragged the petitioner unnecessarily in this criminal case. In support of his contention that under similar circumstances the High Court should exercise its power under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by quashing the proceeding, he has relied on a decision in the case of Punjab National Bank V/s. Surendra Prasad Sinha . 6. It is now well settled that a complaint cannot be quashed unless it (a) does not disclose any offence; (b) is frivolous; (c) is vexatious or (d) is oppressive. Reference, if any, may be made to the cases reported in -- and all these decisions have been considered by their Lordships in the case of Ganesh Narayan Hegde V/s. S. Bangarappa and Ors. reported in -- . 7. From reading of the complaint petition, prima facie it appears that the same does disclose an offence and it is neither frivolous for vexatious. In the present case, on the basis of allegation made in the complaint and result of the enquiry, the Magistrate has merely issued summons to the petitioner and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is being unnecessarily harassed. 8. In the case of K.M. Mathew V/s. State of Kerala , their Lordships have held that it is opened to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The order issuing the process is an interim order and not a judgment. It can be varied or recalled. 9. Thus, in my view, at this stage neither the order taking cognizance can be interfered with nor the entire criminal proceedings can be quashed holding that the allegations do not make out an offence. The argument of Mr. Bajaj that the Magistrate has not recorded any reason while taking cognizance, in my view, is also not sustainable in law. 10. In the case of P.S.I. Data System Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise , the Supreme Court has held that the Court is not required to pass a reasoned order. The decision cited by Mr. Bajaj is also, in my opinion, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In the case of P.S.I. Data System Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise , the Supreme Court has held that the Court is not required to pass a reasoned order. The decision cited by Mr. Bajaj is also, in my opinion, not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the Punjab National Banks case (supra), in paragraph 5, their Lordships have cautioned that judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression or needless harassment. In the reported case a complaint was lodged impleading the Chairman, Managing Director by name and the host of officers and thus, their Lordships observed that there lies the responsibility and duty of the Magistrate to find whether the concerned accused were legally responsible for the offences charged for. In the instant case, however, on the contrary, there is nothing to show that the petitioner have been made accused unnecessarily by the complainants. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances. I find no merit in these applications and the same are dismissed.