JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None turned up on behalf of Opposite Party N0.2 in spite of valid service of notice. 2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, solitary named accused in Complaint Case No. 250 of 2001 filed by Opposite party No. 2 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Patna City, where in cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As appears from the complaint petition Annexure 1 that there was an agreement between Opposite Party No. 2 at one hand and a Company, namely, Indian Saving Products Ltd., Portable Power Division, Krishna Villa, Look Park Street, Kolkatta-17, where in the petitioner is working as Regional Commercial Executive and Opposite Party No. 2 were proceeding together in business. 4. It is the case of Opposite Party No. 2 that in response of demand of the Company through the petitioner, he had issued two blank cheques bearing No. 607151 and 607154 of Punjab National Bank, Morcha Road Branch, Patnacity on 31.07.2000, subsequently former cheque was presented before the Bank for encashment of Rs. 13,56,062/- (Thirteen lacs Fifty Six Thousand Sixty Two) on 12.08.2000, but it was returned on 28.08.2000 with the endorsement "Exceeds Arrangement". The cheque was again presented before the Bank, but returned with same remark on 11.02.2001. It is also stated that Cheque No. 607154 was also presented before the Bank on 09.10.2000 for encashment of Rs. 5,40,471/- (Five Lacs Forty Thousand Four Hundred Seventy One) but it also got same result. 5. In Para 13 of the complaint petition, it is stated that the petitioner send demand notice on 02.11.2000 and 10.01.2001, stating return of cheques from bank with the endorsements aforeMentioned, whereas stated in earlier paragraphs that nothing is due against complainant. The entire amount whatever it may be was paid as against the complainant himself deserve some amount to be paid by the company. Further the complainant apprehends that accused may be involved in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against him. 6. The entire amount whatever it may be was paid as against the complainant himself deserve some amount to be paid by the company. Further the complainant apprehends that accused may be involved in a proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against him. 6. The petitioner has come out with the case that instant complaint has been filed only in retaliation of Complaint Case No. 56 of 2001 filed earlier in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sealdah under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, where in after cognizance notices were served upon Opposite Party No. 2, who with ulterior motive brought instant complaint. 7. It appears that dispute in instant case is of accounting between two persons, involved in some sort of business. The relevant statements made in Para 12 of the compromise petition reads as such: That the complainant has got several claims against the company such as damage claim, P.C.R., van claim and scheme etc. but the accused has not settled all these claims for which the complainant made several reminders but in vain. 8. Thus, no criminal offence is made out and if the impugned order is permitted to continue it shall be nothing, but abuse of process of law, accordingly quashed, application stands allowed.