ORDER D.K. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 7.7.2006 whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, the record now pending in the court of Sri. R.N. Rai Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi arising out of Kotwali P.S. Case No. 592 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 2911 of 2005. 2. The prosecution story in short was that the complainant-respondent No. 2 Mahabir Bhagat presented a complaint case No. 871 of 2005 before the C.J.M. Ranchi against the petitioner stating interalia that he was a truck driver having valid license of driving the truck. He was appointed by the petitioner on monthly salary of Rs. 2000/- for driving his truck No. CG-04/T-7437 with other incentives and he used to get salary regularly for three months but thereafter it was alleged that the petitioner retained his salary on the pretext that it would be paid to him in future. Whenever complainant-respondent No. 2 demanded his salary it was assured that the same was being deposited and that the entire due amount would be paid to him at the time of his need in lump sum. In the meantime the petitioner purchased a new truck and it was made over to the complainant-respondent No. 2 under his control for driving. The complainant upon the assurance had made up his mind that on accumulation of his entire salary he would purchase a tractor and start cultivation work in his own village. On 10.7.2005 when the complainant-respondent No. 2 demanded his entire dues in one lump sum, the petitioner fired and removed him from the job and in that manner his deposited amount to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- was usurped. The complainant-respondent No. 2 a poor tribal who used to work as driver under the employment of the petitioner was deceived and the petitioner thereby committed breach of trust and offence under Sections 406/417/419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after institution and investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was referred to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after institution and investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Having been satisfied with the prima facie materials on the case record, the C.J.M. Ranchi took cognizance of the offence as stated above. 3. Mr. Ananda Sen, the learned Counsel submitted that from the plain reading of the complaint it would be crystal clear that the complainant was claiming his arrears of wages from the petitioner alleged to be due to him and even if the prosecution case is admitted to be true for the sake of argument, though denied, the appropriate forum for the complainant would have been the competent court under the Payment of Wages Act and not under any provision of Indian Penal Code and therefore, the cognizance of the offence taken under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner was miscarriage of justice. As a matter of fact, there was no relation of employer and employee between the contesting parties. Similarly there was no inducement on the part of the petitioner or entrustment of any property by the complainant-respondent No. 2 to him so as to constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. Mr. Sen asserted that the complainant-respondent No. 2 as a matter of fact used to work in a motor garage in which the truck of the petitioner used to be sent for repairing or servicing. Finally Mr. Sen submitted that according to the prosecution version as contained in the complaint petition, the complainant-respondent No. 2 was engaged by the petitioner on 1.1.2000 to drive his truck bearing registration No. CG-04 ZC 7437 and that the initial letters 'CG' stand for Chhatisgarh. It was the matter of common knowledge that on 1.1.2000 the State of Chhatisgarh was not in existence so as to provide registration with 'CG' and therefore, in this manner the entire allegation as against the petitioner is falsified and that the present case has been brought about only to harass the petitioner by institution of false case under the IPC which is not maintainable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. 4. The payment of wages Act, 1936 applies in the first instance to the payment of wages to persons employed in any [factory, to persons] employed [otherwise than in a factory] upon any railway by a railway administration or, either directly or through a sub-contractor, by a person fulfilling a contract with a railway administration [and to persons employed in an industrial or other establishment specified in Sub-clause (a) to (g) of Clause (ii) of Section-2]. But covers tramway service, or motor transport service engaged in carrying passengers or goods or both by road for hire or reward. The prosecution story is that the complainant-respondent No. 2 was employed by his employer-petitioner in motor transport service which used to carry goods by road for hire or reward and therefore, for any kind of grievance for settlement of wages or realization of the amount due to the employer shall be settled under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. 5. The prosecution story is that the complainant-respondent No. 2 was employed by his employer-petitioner in motor transport service which used to carry goods by road for hire or reward and therefore, for any kind of grievance for settlement of wages or realization of the amount due to the employer shall be settled under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. 5. As regards claims arising out of deduction from wages or delay in payment of wages and penalty for malicious or vexatious claim by the employer, the relevant section as incorporated in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is Section 15 which speaks : (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint [a presiding officer of any Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal, constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or under any corresponding law relating to the investigation and settlement of industrial disputes in force in the State or] any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation or other officer with experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a Stipendiary Magistrate to be the authority to hear and decide for any specified area all claims arising out of deduction from the wages, or delay in payment of the wages, [of persons employed or paid in that area, including all matters, incidental to such claims: Provided that where the State Government considers it necessary so to do, it may appoint more than one authority for any specified area and may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them under this Act.] (2) Where contrary to the provisions of this Act any deduction has been made from the wages of an employed person, or any payment of wages has been delayed, such person himself, or any legal practitioner or any official of a registered trade union authorized in writing to act on his behalf, or any inspector under this Act, or any other persons acting with the permission of the authority appointed under Sub-section (1), may apply to such authority for a direction under Sub-section (3). Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be; 6. Provided that every such application shall be presented within (twelve months) from the date on which the deduction from the wages was made or from the date on which the payment of the wages was due to be made, as the case may be; 6. In view of the above provisions of law I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, while taking cognizance of the alleged offence, ignored this aspect that by taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406/420 I.P.C. he acted beyond his jurisdiction. The petitioner had efficacious alternative remedy to agitate the matter before the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction within the period of limitation but I find that on wrong advice and notion the complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi who by an erroneous order referred the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cods of Criminal Procedure which amounts to miscarriage of justice. Yet, in view of the given facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law as discussed above, I find that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner in the present form for the alleged offence under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable, accordingly, the cognizance order and criminal prosecution of the petitioner under Indian Penal Code is quashed in relation to complaint Case No. 871 of 2005 corresponding to Kotwali (Sukhdeonagar) P.S. case No. 0592 of 2005 pending before Sri. R.N. Rai, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ranchi. 7. This writ petition is allowed. However, I observe that in the event of appropriate petition under payment of wages Act before the competent court the limitation may be considered.