JUDGMENT : D.G.R. Patnaik, J. Petitioners in the instant application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate in Complaint Case No. 12 of 2005, whereby the learned court below has taken cognizance of the offences u/s 407 IPC against the petitioners. The further prayer made is for quashing the entire criminal proceedings which is pending against the present petitioners following the impugned order of cognizance. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and also counsel for the State. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order of cognizance on the ground that it is illegal and has been passed without application of judicial mind and as a matter of fact, by suppressing material facts and misrepresenting the facts, the complainant has managed to obtain the impugned order of cognizance for the criminal prosecution of the petitioners only to harass them. 4. Elaborating his arguments, learned Counsel reads out the entire contents of the complaint petition and submits that even as per the allegation of the complainant, petitioners being the goods carrier, the consignment of the goods was given to the petitioners for transportation and delivery to the consignee namely, Mahabir Kali & Co., at Deoghar. The consignment was thereafter delivered to the consignee. The consignee has though received the goods, but had not paid the price of the goods to the complainant and it is only for the purpose of realization of the amount from him through criminal proceedings, that the complainant has maliciously involved the present petitioners on the basis of false and frivolous allegations in the criminal proceedings against them. Learned Counsel submits that the contention of the complainant that after dispatching the goods through the road carriers he had instructed the petitioners not to deliver the goods to the consignee and to return the same to him, is misleading in as much as, such instruction was never given to the petitioners, prior to the delivery made to the consignee. The complainant has intentionally failed to produce any copy of such written instruction which he claimed to have issued to the petitioners. The complainant has intentionally failed to produce any copy of such written instruction which he claimed to have issued to the petitioners. Learned Counsel explains further that in view of the entire facts and circumstances, it would transpire that the grievance of the complainant is basically for non-payment of the price of the goods which has been admittedly received by the consignee namely, Mahabir Kali & Co., Deoghar. Learned Counsel adds further that the falsity of the allegation would further confirmed from the fact that though the alleged transaction relates to the month of February 2001, but the present case was instituted after delay of over four years, in 2005. 5. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the other hand submits that the facts of the case would confirm that though the goods were entrusted to the petitioners' road carriers for delivery to the consignee namely, Mahabir Kali & Co., Deoghar (Accused No. 3), but despite the specific instructions not to deliver the goods to the consignee, the present petitioners, in connivance with the said consignor, failed to return the goods to the complainant and have thus misappropriated the goods. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials available on record including the contents of the complaint petition, the statement of the complainant and his witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation during enquiry and the order of cognizance passed by the court below. 7. From perusal of the averments contained in the complaint petition of the opposite party No. 2, and on going through the statements of the complainant and his witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation in course of enquiry conducted by the court below, it does appear that the goods were entrusted to the petitioners road carriers for delivery of the same to the Accused No. 3. The petitioners accordingly delivered the consignment to the Accused No. 3 and such fact of delivery is admitted by the complainant and his witnesses in their respective statements recorded on solemn affirmation and they also admit that part of the goods was also returned to the complainant by accused No. 3. The petitioners accordingly delivered the consignment to the Accused No. 3 and such fact of delivery is admitted by the complainant and his witnesses in their respective statements recorded on solemn affirmation and they also admit that part of the goods was also returned to the complainant by accused No. 3. It also appears that even as per the admission of the complainant and his witnesses, the business transactions between the complainant and the Accused No. 3 namely, Mahabir Kali & Co., Deoghar has been continuing for the past several years in course of which the complainant used to dispatch goods to the said company frequently through the present petitioners/road carriers. It further appears that though, the complainant has claimed to have issued a written instruction to the petitioners not to deliver the goods to the consignee on account of non-receipt of the price of the goods from the consignee, but the complainant has not specified the date on which such instruction was given to the petitioners, nor a copy of any such communication was filed by the complainant in his complaint petition. The complaint petition is silent as to on what date was the consignment delivered to the consignee at Deoghar. The facts suggest therefore that after receiving the goods, the petitioners transporters had promptly delivered the goods to the consignee at Deoghar and prior to the time of delivery, no communication was received from the complainant/consignor instructing the petitioners not to deliver the goods to the consignee. 8. It is apparent from the aforesaid facts that the petitioners did not retain the goods which was entrusted to them. On the other hand, the facts do demonstrate that in compliance with the instruction of the consignor/complainant, the petitioners/road carriers had delivered the goods to the consignee. Under such circumstances, the petitioners cannot be accused of misappropriating the goods or of committing breach of trust in respect of the goods entrusted to them. Apparently, the complainant is aggrieved on account of the fact that he has not received the price of the goods from the consignee. For such grievances, the recourse which he could have taken was by filing a civil proceeding by way of a money suit against the consignee before the competent court of law. 9. Apparently, the complainant is aggrieved on account of the fact that he has not received the price of the goods from the consignee. For such grievances, the recourse which he could have taken was by filing a civil proceeding by way of a money suit against the consignee before the competent court of law. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am convinced that the criminal proceeding as initiated on the basis of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2, is an abuse of the process of the court since, the fact would amply demonstrate that in filing the complaint petition, the complainant was impelled by malafide motives to harass the petitioners. Such malicious prosecution cannot be allowed to continue since, it would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. 10. From perusal of the impugned order of cognizance, I find that the learned court below has proceeded to take cognizance of the offences as against the present petitioners without application of judicial mind to the admitted facts of the case. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made above, I find merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned order of cognizance dated 29.08.2005 passed by the court below in Complaint Case No. 12 of 2005 and the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners before the court below following the impugned order of cognizance, is hereby quashed. Application allowed.