Judgment 1. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in Court today to the effect that petitioner no. 2, Dr. Bharat Ram, died on 10.7.2007 and on that account a prayer has been made to delete the name of petitioner no. 2. Since petitioner no. 2 is reportedly dead, let the name of petitioner no. 2 be deleted from the records of the case with a note about his death and this application will now proceed only at the instance of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4. 2. Heard Sri Sandeep Kumar, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhyay, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No. 2, the complainant, had validly been served with notice, he has chosen not to appear to contest this application. 3. The petitioners through this application has prayed for the quashing of order dated 4.5.2005 passed by Sri B. Tiwari, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 2416(C) of 2004 whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B I.P.C. 4. Vijay Kumar Malhotra, the complainant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint alleging inter alia that the Company (accused no. 1) published an application form for attracting the public under its 19.5 secured privately placed redeemable non-convertible series B in which the complainant after long persuasion deposited Rs. 20,000/- and was issued bond certificate as detailed in the complaint petition. It is further alleged that on 18.11.1998 on maturity when the complainant requested the accused persons for payment of the maturity amount he was not paid the same and it was alleged that the complainant had been cheated by the petitioners. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Company in its normal course of business had utilized the money received from its creditors for giving loans/any other corporate deposits, leasing and higher purchase facilities to various creditors as well as individual customers and since from 1996 such corporate debtors of the Company started defaulting in the repayment of the money due to the Company, the Company was forced into a severe liquidity crisis which consequently resulted in an asset liability mismatch in the applicant-Company. Thereafter with effect from October, 1997 the Company stopped collecting deposits from public with information to the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the R.B.I.") and subsequently on 17.11.1997 the R.B.I. directed the Company not to collect any further public deposits. In December, 1997 by a further order the R.B.I. restrained the Company from selling, transferring, creating charge, mortgaging or dealing in any manner with its property and asset without prior written permission of the R.B.I. except for the purpose of meeting obligations of the depositors. As a result of the directions of the R.B.I. the business of the Company stagnated and its functions were limited to the recovery of past dues only. It has further been submitted that the Company had issued debentures and the debenture holders had appointed the Central Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "the C.B.I.") as the debenture trustee. It has also been submitted that the trustee on behalf of the debenture holders had filed suit for recovery before the Bombay High Court which was adjourned sine die. It has further been submitted that the aggrieved depositors had sent various applications to the Company Law Board to give suitable directions to the Company and the applicant- Company proposed before the Company Law Board various schemes for payment of deposits to fixed deposit holders of the applicant-Company and by order dated 17.7.1998, the Company Law Board suo motu framed a scheme on its own ordering payment to fixed depositors and in compliance thereof the applicant-Company started complying with the orders of the Company Law Board but due to restrictions imposed by the R.B.I. slow rate of recovery of its dues and legal action being faced by it, the applicant-Company was not able to fully comply with the orders of the Company Law Board. It has further been submitted that the Company has filed Company Apolication No. (M) No. 1124 of 2004 before the Delhi High Court under Sections 391 to 394 for scheme of arrangement for reorganization of share of the Company and for compromise with its secured and unsecured creditors which is pending before the Delhi High Court and the said High Court had passed several orders on the said Company Petition. On this premise, it was sought to be submitted that petitioner no. 1, the Company had not cheated the complainant, O.P. No. 2 6. On this premise, it was sought to be submitted that petitioner no. 1, the Company had not cheated the complainant, O.P. No. 2 6. It has further been submitted that no offence either under Section 420 or 406 or 120B I.P.C. is made out against petitioner nos. 3 and 4 and the only allegation is against the Company (petitioner no.1). It has also been submitted that the present case is purely a "commercial transaction" and giving it the colour of criminal nature by the complainant is illegal. It was also sought to be submitted that the complaint had been filed without giving any details of the place of occurrence in the complaint petition. Since it has merely been stated in the complaint that the place of occurrence was police station-Kadam Kuan, District-Patna without there being any statement about the place of occurrence and in that view of the matter the criminal court at Patna had no jurisdiction to try the present case. In support of its contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment dated 8.11.2004 of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 22119 of 2004 whereby the application for quashing was allowed for the reasons that the petitioners were the Company and its Directors and there was no specific allegation that the Directors had connived in the commission of the alleged offence and as per the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in (1983)1 SCC 1 , the Directors cannot be held liable unless their complicity is alleged in the complaint petition and in that petition there was no such allegation against the petitioners. 7. It is apparent from the reading of the cryptic complaint that there is no assertion to the effect that the petitioner nos. 3 and 4 were responsible for the day to day functioning of the Company and that they had connived in the commission of the alleged offence. Even otherwise, from the allegations made in the complaint petition, it would appear that the money due to the complainant from the debenture had not been returned to him and the reasons thereof had been stated in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. That apart the matter is already sub judice before the Delhi High Court and the Company Law Board framed a scheme suo motu ordering payment to fixed depositors. That apart the matter is already sub judice before the Delhi High Court and the Company Law Board framed a scheme suo motu ordering payment to fixed depositors. From a consideration of the matter at hand, it would only be trite to say that the entire dispute relates to a "commercial transaction" and the relief therefor would be available before a court of civil jurisdiction and criminal prosecution was unwarranted. 8. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the order taking cognizance is hereby quashed.