JUDGEMENT 1. The two petitioners herein who are arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 3709(C) of 2006 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 29.6.2007 passed therein by Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioners of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 I.P.C. and has directed for issuance of process against them. 2. The complainant, M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Patna Branch (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") through its Branch Manager, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint stating inter alia that it was a Non-Banking Finance Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act which advances loans for purchase of motor vehicles and that accused no. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- by entering into a Loan Agreement dated 31.11.2002 for purchasing a tractor wherein accused no. 2 stood as his guarantor. It is said that as per agreement, the loan amount was to be paid by both the accused as per Schedule-I thereof totalling Rs. 1,86,000/- by way of monthly instalments within 24 months and that accused no. 2 being the guarantor to the said agreement was jointly and severally liable to make the payment of the entire contractual amount in the light of the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further stated that accused no. 2 in the said agreement had undertaken to make the entire payment of the agreed amount within the specified period as per repayment schedule in instalments on due dates. It is alleged that as per legal notice dated 13.11.2006, a total amount of Rs. 52,645/- apart from the late charges and other charges as applicable in terms of the agreement remained outstanding with the accused. It is further alleged that several reminder and legal notices were sent to the accused persons, all of which were returned back unserved presumably in collusion with the postal staff as there were no endorsement thereupon assigning reasons for such non-service. On the aforesaid premise it was specifically alleged that the accused from the very threshold stage had the intention to misappropriate the money. 3. The further case of the complainant is that when an employee of the Company went to accused no. 1 to collect the due instalment he paid a sum of Rs. On the aforesaid premise it was specifically alleged that the accused from the very threshold stage had the intention to misappropriate the money. 3. The further case of the complainant is that when an employee of the Company went to accused no. 1 to collect the due instalment he paid a sum of Rs. 17,000/- towards the monthly instalment and in token thereof a receipt dated 12.8.2004 was granted to him on behalf of the Company. Subsequently, when the complainant approached accused no. 1 for the balance amount he refused to pay the due monthly instalment for the rest of the amount and instead showed the receipt dated 12.8.2004 to indicate that he had made payment of Rs. 70,000/-. On perusal, it was detected that the first digit 1 had been erased and instead an additional 0 had been inserted so as to make the receipt read as Rs. 70,000/- and accordingly fabrication was made in the amount indicated in words by converting word seventeen to Seventy by inserting the y after erasing een which would be apparent to the naked eye from a bare perusal thereof and by comparing the same with the copy of the receipt maintained in the office. It was asserted that till date the accused were liable to pay a sum of Rs. 52,645/- and, therefore, there was no question of paying Rs. 70,000/- on 12.8.2004. On this premise, it was alleged that offences under Sections 467 and 468 I.P.C. had also been committed by the accused persons. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party Company. 5. After hearing the respective submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the matter relates to advancing loan to the petitioners and non-payment of certain amount thereof by the petitioners. That apart, to me it appears that although the narratives regarding the loan have been ornamented with trappings resembling criminal offence, the fact remains that it involves the advancing of loan by the complainant and non-payment thereof in full by the petitioners which clearly assumes a situation which is completely of civil nature and involves a matter which is of civil nature and can be resolved through civil litigation. 6. It goes without saying that as it is a matter of accounting, it has necessarily to be decided in a civil suit preferred by the opposite party no. 6. It goes without saying that as it is a matter of accounting, it has necessarily to be decided in a civil suit preferred by the opposite party no. 2, if he so chooses. 7. So far as the allegation of the commission of the offence of forgery is concerned, there is presently no cogent evidence that a forgery has indeed been committed. The Supreme Court as also this Court has repeatedly observed, times without number, that in case of a dispute of civil nature filing of criminal proceedings should not be entertained or encouraged. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the complainant, if he so desires, can take recourse or seek remedy through civil remedy. However, it is made clear that if during the course of the civil proceedings, in the event the complainant so chooses, it comes to light that fraud and fabrication has been committed by the accused persons, it shall be open to the complainant to take recourse of legal action in accordance with law before the appropriate forum. 8. For the reasons, indicated above, the impugned order taking cognizance and issuing process against the accused persons is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.