Judgment 1. The petitioner, which is a registered company has filed this application under Sec. 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of cognizance dated 23-8-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1050(C) of 2005 thereby and thereunder the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds. It is submitted that the facts set out in the complaint petition do not disclose necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust. The other submission is that the opposite party No. 2/complainant has actually filed this complaint case with a view to wreaking vengeance and to spite him due to personal grudge as the petitioner had already filed a case against him for committing fraud, cheating etc. 3. The facts which are required to be set out here are as follows : The petitioner is a sister concern of Bhilwara Group companies engaged in manufacturing of readymade garments and accessories. In April, 2004 the opposite party No. 2 entered into a Distributorship Agreement with the petitioner-company for the entire State of Bihar through Annexure-P/4 dated 1-4-2004. As per agreement the opposite party No. 2 also deposited security amount of rupees three lacs and also three duly signed cheques with undertaking to honour the said cheques on presentation. Thereafter, on verbal orders placed by the opposite party No. 2 in the month of June, 2004 the petitioner-company supplied goods through different invoices worth Rs. 5,29,278/- against advance payment of rupees one lac only. 4. Again in the month of September, 2004 the opposite party No. 2 requested the petitioner-company to supply pre-winter and winter stocks but the petitioner-company refused to supply the stock unless the previous dues of Rs. 4,29,278/- is paid. Ultimately the opposite party No. 2 came over to Delhi and after negotiation agreed to make payment of dues through cheque. A cheque bearing No. 638564 for Rs. 4,29,278/- was handed over by him to the petitioner-company. However, on presentation the same was dishonoured as the account of opposite party No. 2 had already been closed. In spite of legal notice served upon him neither payment was done nor any reply was given by the opposite party No. 2. A cheque bearing No. 638564 for Rs. 4,29,278/- was handed over by him to the petitioner-company. However, on presentation the same was dishonoured as the account of opposite party No. 2 had already been closed. In spite of legal notice served upon him neither payment was done nor any reply was given by the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter on 30th December, 2004 the petitioner-company filed a complaint case against the opposite party No. 2 u/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before the Chief Metroplitan Magistrate, New Delhi which was registered as Complaint Case No. 7106/04 (Annexure-P/12). Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 filed this case. 5. Learned counsel after going through the complaint petition submitted that the allegations made in it coupled with admitted facts, even taken true on its face value, do not disclose ingredients of offences under which the cognizance has been taken by the lower Court. There is nothing in the allegations to show that there was any intention of cheating etc, at the time parties entered into the business agreement. It is further submitted that the facts and circum stances as narrated above manifestly Indicate that the opposite party No. 2 has actually lodged this criminal case with ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance for the case earlier lodged by the petitioner-company. Learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court as well as our Hon ble High Court including (1999) 8 SCC 46S : (2000 Cri LJ 174) (Sunil Kumar V/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Ltd. & Ors.) and AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527) (State of Haryana V/s. Ch. Bhajan Lal). 6. In AIR 1992 SC 604 : (1992 Cri LJ 527), the Apex Court set out some circumstances in paragraph 108 of the Judgment which Justify the quashing of any criminal proceeding. One of the circumstances, which is relevant in this case is as follows (Para 7): "Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 7. One of the circumstances, which is relevant in this case is as follows (Para 7): "Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 7. In other decision of the Apex Court reported in (1999) 8 SCC 468 : (2000 Cri LJ 174), almost similar matter was before the Bench and in paragraph 5 of the Judgment it has been held as follows : "Bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to earlier and the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on examining the allegations made in the FIR, we are persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. H. N. Salve and Mr. Arun Jaitley, appearing for the respondents that the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust have not been made out and on the other hand the attendant circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against the informant under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court therefore, was well within its power in quashing the FIR as otherwise it would tantamount to an abuse the process of Court. We, therefore, see no justification for our interference with the impugned decision of the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution." 8. Thus, on consideration of above facts and circumstances and law I am of the opinion that this case has been initiated by the opposite party No. 2 with mala fide intention for wreaking vengeance which also does not disclose necessary ingredients of the offence and thus it is a fit case to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 23-8-2005, so far it relates to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.