JUDGEMENT Akhilesh Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of complainant opposite party No. 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No. 2894(C) of 2004 filed by opposite party No. 2 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, for offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code wherein on transfer to the court of Shri Raj Kishore Rai, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 07.02.2005. 3. The relevant facts of the case is that there was an agreement between the complainant and accused No. 1 M/s Amway India Enterprises (non-petitioner here-in-after referred as company) by virtue of which the complainant was made service partner of the said company on 29.07.2003, but, subsequently, breaking the tie, one Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was prepared on 12.10.2004. As per Clause 9 of the same, electric and telephone connections running in the name of the complainant company were to be transferred in the name of company of which petitioner is director, in lieu thereof particular amount deposited with the electricity board and telephone department were to be refunded by the company to the complainant within stipulated period, but, since no refund was made complaint petition was filed and cognizance has been taken, giving rise to instant application. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the amount lying with the electricity board and the telephone department are by way of security deposits still lying there in the name of the complainants organization and the connections which were to be transferred as per Clauses 8 and 9 of Memorandum of Understanding in the name of company could not be materalised due to some technical difficulties by the department concerned. The complainant, if had applied for refund of such security deposits, the concerned authorities could have return the amount accordingly, but, neither there was any entrustment of money to the petitioner nor any offence appears committed by him or the company, so the complaint is not at all permissible to continue. 5. The complainant, if had applied for refund of such security deposits, the concerned authorities could have return the amount accordingly, but, neither there was any entrustment of money to the petitioner nor any offence appears committed by him or the company, so the complaint is not at all permissible to continue. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly submitted that order taking cognizance suffers vagueness but whatever grounds are taken on behalf of the petitioner may also be available to them before the court below at the appropriate stage i.e. hearing on the point of charge. So no interference is required by this Court. 6. From the plain reading of the complaint petition, it appears that complainant has specifically stated that in terms of Clause 9 of Memorandum of Understanding, the amount lying with Electricity Board and Telephone Department are to be paid by the company to him, but at the same time, it is also stated that connection were to be transferred in the name of the company and if the money is returned to the complainant he undertakes to return the same to the petitioner but, the complainant though has stated about non-refund of the amount so liable to be paid to him by the petitioner but is completely silent whether connections were transferred in the name of the company or not and since prima facie transfer of connections in the name of the company and payment of money by it to the complainant appears co-related with each other and depending upon interpretation of relevant clauses of Memorandum of Understanding, but, perhaps before the court below, neither copy of Memorandum of Understanding was there nor relevant portions were placed. 7. In the complaint petition, the complainant is again silent about taking any step taken by him for refund of the money from the authorities concerned and any hindrances put forward by the petitioner or the company in absence thereof no criminal offence is made out against him/them. 8. As submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the relevant security deposits in the name of complainant are still lying with the authorities and the petitioner at any point of time neither has put any hindrance nor raise any objection in refund of the amount to the complainant by the department nor any such objection could have been raised. 9. 9. In view of the above discussions and considerations at best it is a case of non-refund of the amount to the complainant opposite party No. 2 relating to interpretation of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.10.2004 and its compliance. Such dispute is completely of civil nature for which remedy lies in the civil courts, and by no stretch of imagination criminal proceeding may be initiated, but, the court below has taken cognizance for the offences under Section 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code without any material attracting commission of any such offence and if such criminal proceeding which is squarely covered more than criteria prescribed in famous case State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; is permitted to continue, it will be nothing but abuse of the process of law and wastage of precious judicial time. It may also be against the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to go before the court below for discharge and face further pain. 10. Accordingly, impugned order and complaint petition is hereby quashed and this application stands allowed without affecting any of the complainant opposite party to invoke jurisdiction of the competent civil court/Legal Services Authority for redressal of his grievances, if any, in accordance with law.