JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. As both the cases arise out of the common complaint and they involve similar questions of facts and law they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioner, Rishish Chandra Goyal (in Cr. Misc. No. 2411 of 1999 (R), was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh, District Burdwan and the petitioner, Prasanjit Kumar Sen Gupta alias P.K. Sen Gupta (In Cr. Misc. No. 8235 of 1998 (R) was the Chairman of Coal India Limited, 10, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta, at the time of filing of the complaint. They were not made parties in the complaint petition by name but by their designation. 3. The gist of acquisition is that the bills against the contract work done by the complainant from 1.6.1987 to 15.11.1988 were not paid inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant and recommendations to pay the same. It is mentioned in the complaint petition that the complainant filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 6162 of 1994 which was dismissed on 27.1.1997 with an observation that since the question of limitation may arise in such cases, the petitioner may, if so advised, seek remedy before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or before any other authority, in accordance with law. It is alleged that again the complainant requested for settlement of dues but he came to know that all the records connected with his works were not traceable in the office. As advised, the complainant submitted xerox copies of the same. Again on 30.12.1987, the Committee recommended for payment of the dues of the petitioners for the aforesaid period, but inspite of this, payment was not made. It is further alleged that on 12.4.1998, accused No. 4, the Chief General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Limited, Raj Mahal Group of Mines (IC) visited the Head Office of the complainant at Bokaro and asked for illegal demands on behalf of all the accused persons for payment of the said dues. 4. On the basis of the said allegation, the complainant filed the present complaint on 14/16.5.1998 alleging offences under Sections 166, 406/34, 120-B/171-E, 427, 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 4. On the basis of the said allegation, the complainant filed the present complaint on 14/16.5.1998 alleging offences under Sections 166, 406/34, 120-B/171-E, 427, 500 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing, the records, I am satisfied that so far as these two petitioners are concerned, no case is made out against them by the complainant. Only a vague and general allegation is made that accused No. 4 representing other accused persons and on their direction, demanded bribe for payment of the bills of the complainant as the other accused persons, on their direction, could not come due to emergency work. 6. In the facts and on circumstances, I am satisfied that no case is made out against these two petitioners for proceeding against them in this criminal case. 7. In the circumstances, both the application are allowed and the order of cognizance dated 21.7.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas in C.P. Case No. 130 of 1998, so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed.