This is a revision for quashing the proceeding under Complaint Case No. 934c/90 pending in the Court of First Class Judicial Magistrate at Guwahati under section 420/506/323 IPC. . 2. When the case is called on for hearing none appears for the opposite party. I have heard Mr. RK Jain, learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioners. 3. On 28.5.90, the complainant/opposite party has filed a complaint petition against the accused-petitioner alleging commission of an offence under section 420/506/500/352 IPC in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guwahati. According to complaint, the complainant worked in M/s India Auto Enterprise, Shreemanta Market, AT Road, Guwahati as working partner from September, 1984 on commission basis @ 5% on total business of procurement with Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd, Jagiroad, Guwahati, Municipal Corporation, Central Water Commission, Guwahati, Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd and Director of Agriculture, Guwahati and also other private firms. It has been further stated in the complaint petition that after April, 1985, the accused No.l took the complainant to Shillong and utilised his service in the State of Meghalaya and after rendering 10 month's services there the accused No. 1 posted the complainant at Guwahati as Sales Manager for selling Escort Tractor, Grain etc till March, 1987. In the meantime the complainant sent a registered letter to accused No.2 requesting him to pay Rs. 10,000/- as an advance for Sradha ceremony of his mother from the Said 5% commission. They told the complainant that they would withdraw money from the bank and distribute the shares and the 5% commission would be given to complainant. The complainant has come to know that the accused persons has withdrawn the amount from bank without his knowledge and did not pay him the commission. Thus the accused persons cheated the complainant. On 19.5.90 when the complainant approached the accused persons for his commission money, the accused Nos 2 and 3 threatened him with dire consequences. 4. The learned. Magistrate examined the complainant on oath and the complainant stated that on the death of his mother, he sent a registered letter asking Rs. 10,000 from his commission, but no reply was given to the said letter and the entire share was withdrawn and distributed by the three accused persons without his knowledge and without giving him his 5% commission and when he approached them, they abused him. 10,000 from his commission, but no reply was given to the said letter and the entire share was withdrawn and distributed by the three accused persons without his knowledge and without giving him his 5% commission and when he approached them, they abused him. The learned Magistrate then by his order dated 28.5.90 took cognizance of the offence under section 420/506/323 IPC and ordered issuance of process. Being aggrieved, the accused-petitioner has filed this criminal revision for quashing the above proceeding in the above mentioned complaint case, on the ground that the act attributed to the accused/ petitioners in the complaint and in the initial deposition do not constitute an offence under section 420/506/323 IPC. Even assuming that the statements made in the complaint petition have disclosed a case under the Partnership Act or a case of breach of contract, the complainant should sought remedy in the civil Court. 5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the partnership firm of M/s India Auto Enterprise was dissolved in the month of March, 1988 and thereafter all the partners of the said firm are doing their individual business. Further, the accused-petitioners denied that they have any kind of business relation­ship with the complainant and the complaint is false, vexatious and the proceedings are deserved to be quashed. It is stated in the complaint petition that the complainant worked in the said firm since 1984 for 10 months. He claimed 5% commission only on 19.5.90 whereas the firm already stood dissolved in 1988. In the complaint petition, the complainant stated that the accused persons threatened the complaint with dire consequences, but in his deposition on oath before the Magistrate he did not mention anything about threatening and instead he claimed that the accused persons abused and beaten him, but in the complaint petition he did not utter a single word that he was beaten by the accused persons. Therefore, his allegation that the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences in the complaint petition and his statement as stated on oath before the magistrate appear to be highly improbable; and from the rest of the allegations in the complaint petition, the case appeared to be of a civil nature. In this regard Mr. Therefore, his allegation that the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences in the complaint petition and his statement as stated on oath before the magistrate appear to be highly improbable; and from the rest of the allegations in the complaint petition, the case appeared to be of a civil nature. In this regard Mr. Jain has referred to the Apex Court decision reported in (1998) 7 SCC 698 wherein it has been held that: “Merely because an accused has a right to plead at the time of framing of charges that there is no sufficient material for such framing of charges as provided in section 245 of the Code, he is not debarred from approaching the Court even at an earlier point / of time when the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and summons the accused to appear to contend that the very issuance of the order of taking cognizance is invalid on the ground that no offence can be said to have been made out on the allegations made in the complaint petition. Power under section 482 has to be exercise sparingly and in the interest of justice. But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under section 482 of the code can be exercised.” 6. In view of the above, the orders dated 28.5.90 and 22.6.90 passed by the learned Magistrate, Guwahati are set aside and the proceedings in Case No. 934c/90 under sections 420/50.6/323 IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Guwahati are quashed. This criminal revision stands disposed of.