JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar, J. 1. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of an order dated 3.8.1998 passed by Sri Chandrama Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No. 840 of 1998, Trial No. 819 of 1998. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 419, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and directed for summoning the petitioners. 2. Short facts of the case is that Opp. Party No. 2 filed a complaint vide Complaint Case No. 840 of 1998 against two petitioners and one Pashupati Prasad for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,419 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that accused No. 1, namely, Pashupati Prasad, who was owner of the truck, bearing registration No. BPF 4651, requested the complainant for transporting the sugarcane to the Vishnu Sugar Mill. The complainant accepted the proposal of accused No. 1 for transporting his ten trucks of sugarcane to the sugar factory. It has been disclosed that the petitioners were Manager and Cane Manager respectively of Vishnu Sugar Mill. It has been disclosed by the complainant that an agreement was entered in between the complainant and Pashupati Prasad (accused No. 1) that in respect of transportation charge the complainant will give the price of one trucks of Sugarcane to Pashupati Prasad (accused No. 1) and payment in respect of remaining nine trucks was to be delivered to the complainant by accused No. 1. It was agreed that nine trucks of sugarcane was to be delivered to the Vishnu Sugar Mill, Gopalganj. Out of ten truck of sugarcane, nine trucks of sugarcane were unloaded at Vishnu Sugar Mill, Gopalganj and one trucks of sugarcane was unloaded at Sasamusa Sugar Mill. The complainant on the basis of receipts had received payment in respect of seven truck of sugarcane. However, in respect of two receipts vide receipt No. 015026 dated 8.1.1997 and receipt No. 182496 dated 7.1.1997 the amount remained due and the aforesaid two receipts were in possession of that complainant. The complainant on the basis of receipts had received payment in respect of seven truck of sugarcane. However, in respect of two receipts vide receipt No. 015026 dated 8.1.1997 and receipt No. 182496 dated 7.1.1997 the amount remained due and the aforesaid two receipts were in possession of that complainant. It was disclosed the complainant along with aforesaid two receipts repeatedly approached the sugarcane factory and finally on 12.5.1998, the complainant was provided with the information that in respect of aforesaid two receipts, payment for an amount of Rs. 14, 590/- was already made to accused No. 1, namely, Pashupati Prasad. It has been alleged that both the petitioners conspiring with accused Pashupati Prasad had misappropriated the said amount, which was required to be paid to the complainant on production of receipts. Accordingly, on the aforesaid allegation, complaint petition was filed. After filing of complaint petition and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offences as mentioned above. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 8.2.1999, while issuing notice to Opp. Party No. 2, this Court directed that in the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken as against the petitioners. Subsequently, on 12.4.1999 the petition was admitted for hearing and it was directed that till final disposal, further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 840 of 1998 in the Court of Shri Chandrama Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj, shall remain stayed but only so far as the petitioners are concerned. It was made clear that proceedings as regards co-accused Pashupati Prasad may continue in accordance with law. 4. Sri Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while challenging the order of cognizance, has submitted that the contents of complaint petition makes it clear that both the petitioners, who were employed as General Manager of Vishnu Sugar Mill, Gopalganj and Cane Manager of Vishnu Sugar Mill, Gopalganj respectively have committed no offence. It has been submitted that the complaint petition indicates that the complainant had entered into an oral agreement with accused No. 1, Pashupati Prasad for transporting the sugarcane to the factory from the field of the cane- growers. It has been submitted that the complaint petition indicates that the complainant had entered into an oral agreement with accused No. 1, Pashupati Prasad for transporting the sugarcane to the factory from the field of the cane- growers. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in any event the dispute, which has been claimed by the complainant, was covered under Section 46 of the Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of supply and Purchase) Act, 1981. It has further been submitted that the receipts in question were not in the name of complainant, but in the name of cane growers, namely, Jit Bahadur Singh and Tulsi Singh. It has also been submitted, while referring to paragraph 14 of the petition that accused No. 1 Pashupati Prasad, who was in touch with Sugar Mill for transporting and unloading the sugarcane, had filed a petition dated 11.4.1997 stating therein that two cane receipts were lost and, therefore, payment may not be made arising out of the said cane receipts, which were the subject matter of the dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to paragraph 15 of the petition and it has been submitted that subsequently on 24.11.1997 after lapse of seven months, accused No. 1 Pashupati Prasad filed an application that he on earlier occasion had filed an application for stopping of payment and now the said money may be paid to him. The matter was inquired and after getting report and execution of bond, payment was made to him since accused No. 1, namely, Pashupati Prasad was supplying sugarcane. On the aforesaid facts, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that whatever omission or commission was done by accused No. 1 with whom the complainant had entered into an agreement for transportation of sugarcane. It has been submitted that in any event, both the petitioners cannot be held responsible for commission of any offence by accused No. 1, Pashupati Prasad, who was transporter of the sugarcane. Accordingly, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance and entire criminal proceeding in Complaint Case No. 840 of 1998 so far as both the petitioners are concerned. 5. Sri Vijay Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted by Sri Prasad, learned counsel for Opp. 5. Sri Vijay Kumar Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp. Party No. 2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted by Sri Prasad, learned counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 that it was a clear-cut case of conspiracy and conspiring with each other the complainant was cheated by accused persons and the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 14,590/-. It has further been submitted that this Court may refrain from exercising inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of the petitioners that too against the order of cognizance. Accordingly, it has been prayed to reject the petition. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners were officials of Vishnu Sugar Mill in the capacity of General Manager and Cane Manager respectively. The complainant himself has admitted in its complaint that he entered into an agreement with accused No. 1 for unloading of sugarcane to the Sugar Mill. It was agreed that ten trucks of sugarcane were to be transported and out of ten trucks, amount of one truck of sugarcane was to be released/received by accused No. 1 Pashupati Prasad as transportation charge. It is also not in dispute that payment was received by accused No. 1 Pashupati Prasad from the sugar factory. On perusal of the entire materials available on record, the Court is of the opinion that both the petitioners cannot be held responsible for any act of omission and commission done by accused No. 1 Pashupati Prasad. The Court is of the opinion that no case is made out against the petitioners. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the opinion that allowing prosecution of both the petitioners in the present case will amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the Court. 8. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 3.8.1998 passed by Sri Chandrama Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj in Trial No. 819 of 1998 arising out of Complaint Case No. 840 of 1998 is hereby set aside so far as both the petitioners are concerned and the petition stands allowed.