JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the O.P.No. 2. 2. Through the present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 26.4.2006 which has come to be passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-5, Saharsa in Cr. Revision No. 98/2000(S) who in turn was pleased to set aside the. order dated 22.5.2000 passed by the Court of S.D.J.M., Birpur who had dismissed the complaint case in question under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The details of the complaint have been indicated in paragraph No. 3 of the quashing application. Based on these allegations, the complaint petition was entertained. After due evidence of witnesses, the learned S.D.J.M., Birpur came to a considered opinion that the evidence on record leads to the only conclusion that it is basically a civil dispute between the parties arising out of a contract and no criminal element is made out for prosecution. The complaint stood dismissed vide order dated 22.5.2000. 4. Since the order of the S.D.J.M. did not satisfy the complainant he decided to challenge the same by way of filing of a revision which came to be registered as a Cr. Revision No. 98/2000(S). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C-5, Saharsa has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate after considering the submission made on behalf of the parties and he came to a considered opinion that offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the I.P.C. is made out. 5. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is a hypertechnical order in view of the fact that this Court on perusal of the complaint the evidence and the submissions made at the bar is of the opinion that the learned S.D.J.M. had rightly concluded that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature and for which there was no necessity to allow a proceeding in a criminal court but this basic fact has been lost oversight which passing the order in revision by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. There could be occasions where a civil dispute could have a criminal element but it is not one of those cases, where the prosecution of the petitioners ought to be continued more so, when it is not disputed that there are civil cases going between the parties in this regard as well. 7. 6. There could be occasions where a civil dispute could have a criminal element but it is not one of those cases, where the prosecution of the petitioners ought to be continued more so, when it is not disputed that there are civil cases going between the parties in this regard as well. 7. The petitioners have made out a case for interference in the impugned order dated 26.4.2006 passed in Cr. Revision No. 98/2000(S) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 5, Saharsa is quashed. The parties are well advised to sort out their dispute through negotiation or through the Civil Court whichever is acceptable to them. 8. This application is allowed.