Judgment : AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the parties. ( 2 ) IN this application the peti-tioners have challenged the order dated 24/7/2003 in Complaint Case No. 461 of 2003 taking cognizance for the offences under Section 420, IPC against the petitioners after finding prima facie case on the basis of a private complaint and the enquiry made under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and also for the entire criminal prosecution. ( 3 ) A complaint petition was filed by O. P. No. 2 Avery India Limited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jamshedpur against the petitioners, which was registered as C/i Case No. 461/2003. In the complaint petition it was alleged that the complainant was having a registered office at Calcutta and its Depot at Golmuri, Jamshedpur. The accused petitioner No. 1 is a company engaged in steel business and the accused petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are its directors. In the year 1998, the accused persons (petitioners herein) approached the complainant company for purchase of one Electro Mechanical Weigh Bridge and then on 16/6/1998 an order to that effect was placed for supply of the said weigh bridge at a price of Rs. 7,10,996. 00. In terms of the purchase order an advance of Rs. 61,000. 00 was paid by the accused persons to the complainant. The weigh bridge was delivered at the site of the accused persons in September 1998, along with the invoice dated 29/8/1998 for the balance amount of Rs. 5,34,996. 00. On receipt of the weigh bridge, the accused persons claimed dissatisfaction regarding the quality of Girders which were supplied as a part of the weigh bridge and as such they refused to release thebalance amount of money. It is stated that the complainant company duly replaced the TGirders with a new set, with stipulation that the old Girders would be returned to the complainant. Subsequently, the weigh bridge was commissioned and was handed over to the petitioners on 20/4/2001. It is further alleged that inspite of commissioning and receiving the weigh bridge in satisfactory condition, the accused persons failed and neglected to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,34,446. 00. Thereafter the complainant served a demand notice but the accused persons did not pay the balance amount to the complainant and, accordingly, the complaint petition was filed. It is further alleged that inspite of commissioning and receiving the weigh bridge in satisfactory condition, the accused persons failed and neglected to pay the balance amount of Rs. 5,34,446. 00. Thereafter the complainant served a demand notice but the accused persons did not pay the balance amount to the complainant and, accordingly, the complaint petition was filed. ( 4 ) PRAMOD Kumar Singh the authorized representative of the complainant, who had filed the complaint petition, was examined on solemn affirmation by the learned Magistrate and then during enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. one witness namely, Siddharth Mallick was examined on behalf of the complainant. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate on the basis of the materials on record and relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj v. NCT of Delhi, took cognizance for the of- fences under Section 420, IPC on 24/7/2003 and issued summons to the accused persons for their appearance. ( 6 ) THIS order of the learned Magistrate is under challenge before this Court mainly on the ground that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition on their face value are taken to be true, no offence is made out and at best it can be said to be a case of commercial/money transaction which is purely a case of civil nature and as such the order taking cognizance for the offences alleged is an abuse of the process of the Court. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance on the ground that no part of the occurrence as alleged has taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below at Jamshedpur and, therefore, the order taking cognizance is wholly without jurisdiction. ( 8 ) FROM the impugned order taking cognizance, it appears that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Bajaj (supra) holding that the character of the present case was similar to the case of Rajesh Bajaj. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, accused No. 1 of which the other accused, i. e. petitioner Nos. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the complainant, accused No. 1 of which the other accused, i. e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 are the Directors, failed to make payment of the price of the Weigh Bridge supplied by the complainant to the accused persons though demand made for the payment of the balance amount under the contract. On failure to make payment, the complainant filed complaint in Court. From the above fact it is clear that the whole grievance of the complainant is about failure on the part of the accused persons to pay the balance amount under a contract, which in my view, at best can be said to be a case of breach of promise/agreement between the parties. There-fore, the dispute is of purely of civil nature arising out of a contract. ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court it appears that the case of Rajesh Bajaj (supra), was initiated on the basis of a First Information Report and the Apex Court dealing with a case regarding quashing of investigation/fir. It was held that if averments made in the complaint, prima fade make out a case for investigation, the High Court cannot quash the complaint merely on the ground that one or two ingredients of the offence have not been stated in detail in the complaint and further that quashing of the complaint on the ground that it discloses commercial or money transaction is not justified as many a cheating is committed in course of commercial or money transaction. ( 11 ) FROM the above fact, it appears that while dealing with a case for quashing of the FIR the Supreme Court held as above that if the averments prima facie make out a case for investigation then the complaint cannot be quashed. Whereas the case in hand arise out of a private complaint which was filed by the complainant O. P. No. 2 giving details of allegation for constituting the alleged offence and the Magistrate held enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. to find out a prima facie case for commission of the offence alleged. Whereas the case in hand arise out of a private complaint which was filed by the complainant O. P. No. 2 giving details of allegation for constituting the alleged offence and the Magistrate held enquiry under Section 202, Cr. P. C. to find out a prima facie case for commission of the offence alleged. ( 12 ) THE basic difference regarding the facts in the case of Rajesh Bajaj (supra) before the Supreme Court and in the present case is that only FIR was lodged and no investigation at all was made or started by the police, whereas in the present case the learned Magistrate held a detail enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC and considering the entire materials placed before him and from the said material he had to judge and opine as to whether from the materials on record, any prima fade case for commission of the offence as alleged is made out or not. Therefore, the case of Rajesh Bajaj (Supra) was not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 13 ) IT is relevant to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Mitra v. has held that for an offence under Section 420, IPC mens rea has to be seen. An intention to deceive should be in existence at the time of inducement. ( 14 ) IN an another decision in the case of U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court on similar facts as in the present case, held that the controversy relates to a purely civil dispute regarding payment of money and hence no case of criminal complaint for the alleged offence is made out and accordingly, quashed the order taking cognizance. ( 15 ) IN the present case the mens rea or intention to deceive at the time of inducement is absolutely lacking and, therefore, in my view, the present case is covered by the aforesaid two decisions of the Supreme Court, i. e. in the case of Ajay Mitra v. (supra) and the deci-sion in the case of U. Dharv. State of Jharkhand. (supra ). State of Jharkhand. (supra ). ( 16 ) IN view of my findings above, I hold that no prima facie case for commission of any offence of criminal nature is made out in the present case and, therefore, the learned Court below committed wrong in taking cognizance against the petitioners by the impugned order. ( 17 ) SINCE this application is being allowed on the first point raised by the petitioner and as such I have not gone into the merits of the second submission made on their behalf, i. e. regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Court below. Consequently, this application is allowed. The order dated 24/7/2003 taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. --- *** --- .