JUDGMENT Honble K.N. Sinha, J.—The present application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 5019 of 2004, Abdul Basit v. Dinesh Chand Jain and another pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. (Court No. 2) Moradabad. 2. The brief fact, giving rise to this petition, is that a complaint was filed in the Court of A.C.J.M. 2nd Moradabad under Section 420, IPC against the applicant by the opposite party No. 2. The allegations are that opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are working in the name of I.B.C. Group engaged in the business of purchase of land and making flats thereon. The complainant -opposite party No. 2 booked the flat in the year 1996 in Platinum Project but the same has not been handed over in spite of various letters and reminders sent, nor the money deposited thereunder has been returned. The complaint is Annexure 1. The Court, after examining two witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C., summoned the applicant as an accused under Section 420, IPC by order dated 2.2.2005 (Annexure 2). 3. According to the applicant, no case under Section 420, IPC is made out. In fact opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 are the estate developer and builder, carrying on their business in the name of IBC Group, a company registered under the Companies Act. In the year 1996, an advertisement was published, against which the complainant and his two brothers booked two flats and paid certain amount to the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, but they did not get the flats nor money was returned hence opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for the same. On the one hand, the remedy has been sought before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and on the other hand, the present complaint has been filed. The opposite party No. 2 complainant is choosing the jurisdiction according to his own convenience. From the perusal of averments made in the complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it is clear that the Court of Moradabad has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The correspondence has been made directly between opposite party No. 2 and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and an agreement to sale was also made between opposite party Nos. 2 and opposite party Nos. The correspondence has been made directly between opposite party No. 2 and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and an agreement to sale was also made between opposite party Nos. 2 and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, wherein the applicant has Nothing to do and No case under Section 420, IPC is made out against him. There was also some correspondence between opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 intimating the opposite party No. 2 that flats are ready and he should come forward to take possession but nothing was done. 4. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2 on the ground that there were revisions filed before the Sessions Judge, who has dismissed the said revisions on 6.12.2005. The complainant opposite party No. 2 is a respectable person and established a business of manufacturing and exporting of gift items. The applicant introduced himself as an agent of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, who were working in the name of I.B.C. Group. In fact the complainant-opposite party No. 2 and his brothers met with the applicant and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 at Delhi for demanding either possession of the flats or money, to which nothing was done. The complainant -opposite party No. 2 as well as the applicant and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 have their offices at New Delhi and as such civil suit was filed at New Delhi. However, fraud and cheating was done by the applicant on behalf of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 at Moradabad hence criminal complaint was being filed at Moradabad. 5. The applicant filed a rejoinder affidavit, reiterating the contents of the application and stating that the present complaint was filed only to harass the applicant. There was no breach of trust but it is a clear case of blackmailing, which is being used by opposite party No. 2 to harass the applicant. 6. Heard Sri R.B. Singhal learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Jamwant Maurya learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. Perused the affidavit, counter-affidavit and the complaint and perused the law cited by Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the applicant. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has nothing to do with the said matter. He is in no way connected with the company of opposite party Nos. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has nothing to do with the said matter. He is in no way connected with the company of opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. A perusal of the complaint shows that the applicant has an office in Delhi and the applicant is an authorised agent. The applicant contacted the complainant firm and told about the flats and its price. The complainant has also filed a petition before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi. 8. There is nothing to suggest that applicant Dinesh Chand Jain is in any way connected with the opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 nor he is the authorised agent. What ever transaction was done, it was between complainant-opposite party No. 2 and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. Thus, the applicant has no concern in any way with the said dealing. Consequently, the deal purely involves a dispute of civil nature and was a contractual liability whatsoever between the parties except petitioner No. 1 for which remedy has already been sought. As per paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, a civil suit was filed at New Delhi. 9. Shri R.B. Singhal learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon (2006) 6 SCC 736 , Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and others, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that "While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged”. 10. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged”. 10. Hon’ble Apex Court further held that "While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law." 11. The principle, laid down above, clearly applies on the facts of the present case, for the reason that it is purely a contractual matter between opposite party No. 2 and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 and whatever there is any breach of contract, it can be enforced on civil side. The matter is also pending at Delhi Court. 12. In any case, the Moradabad Court has no jurisdiction and the applicant is in no way liable for the contracts entered into between opposite party No. 2 and opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. 13. Nowhere it is borne out by the record that any cheating was done nor on the inducement of the applicant the money was delivered. It will not be out of place to mention that criminal Court should be cautious and not that one or two witnesses are examined and summon is issued to the accused. 14. It is settled principle of law, as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in (1998) 5 SCC 749 , Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others that Magistrate has to examine the content of the complaint and the evidence and if a prima facie case is made out, he may summon the accused. To quote one of the important paragraph of the above judgment, it runs as under : “28. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning of the accused. The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.” 15. It shows that the Magistrate should have taken care of this fact whether any offence is made out or not and in the instant case no such offence is made out against the applicant Nor Moradabad Court has jurisdiction. 16. The experience and legal knowledge of Sri R.B. Singhal learned Counsel for the applicant, in assisting the Court is appreciated. 17. Considering the above facts, evidence and law, no case is made out against the applicant. Consequently, the application under Section 482, Cr.P.C is liable to be allowed and it is allowed. The Criminal Complaint Case No. 5019 of 2004 Abdul Basit v. Dinesh Chand Jain and another pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2 Moradabad is hereby quashed against applicant Dinesh Chand Jain. The applicant, if on bail, need not surrender before the Court and sureties stand discharged. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ————