ORDER :- M/s. GTB Project Fabrica¬tors Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint through Mr. Sandeep Singh Maini, its Managing Direc¬tor, under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code Smvt. 1989 against M/s. Surya Pharmaceuticals Limited and its twelve functionaries, which included its President, CMD, Managing Director, Direc¬tors, Additional Directors, Secretary and General Manager, besides M/s. Engineers Associate Fabricators and Erectors through its Partners and Energy Avenues Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director. 2. It was, inter alia, alleged in the com¬plaint that after the acceptance of its tenders, the petitioners-Surya Pharmaceuticals Lim¬ited, induced it to execute Mechanical and Fabrication Work at Surya Pharmaceuticals Limited, Samba Phase-II, on the clear un¬derstanding that the payment for the works executed by it, would be made by the ac¬cused, within ten days of the submission of bills. 3. It is stated in the complaint that though substantial part of the work was completed by the complainant yet the payment therefor was illegally withheld, and later, refusing entry to its workmen in the project and re¬taining its machinery kept in the project for the execution of work, the work was allotted to M/s. Engineers Associate Fabricator and Erectors and Energy Avenues Pvt. Ltd. 4. Taking cognizance of the complaint, and on the basis of the preliminary statements of Mr. Sandeep Singh Maini and Tarjinder Singh Foreman of the Company, process was issued against twelve (12) functionaries of the Surya Pharmaceuticals Limited and one each of M/s. Engineers Associate Fabrica¬tors and Erectors and Energy Avenues Pvt. Ltd., for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B RFC. 5. The petitioners-Surya Pharmaceuticals Limited and its twelve (12) functionaries have filed this petition seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Munsiff), Samba on the respondent's complaint. 6. According to the petitioners, the respon¬dent-complainant has abused the process of the Court in putting the Criminal Law into motion with mala fide intention to force the petitioners to succumb to its illegal demands, on the basis of the complaint, which did not disclose the commission of any penal of¬fence. 7. 6. According to the petitioners, the respon¬dent-complainant has abused the process of the Court in putting the Criminal Law into motion with mala fide intention to force the petitioners to succumb to its illegal demands, on the basis of the complaint, which did not disclose the commission of any penal of¬fence. 7. Referring to Roshan lal Asrani and oth¬ers v. Kashmir Commercial Agency and oth¬ers, reported as 2006 (2) JKJ 142 (HC), it was forcefully contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent had misled the Court to seek issuance of process against the petitioners suppressing, with mala fide intentions, the material fact of the pen¬dency of civil litigation between the parties in respect of the Contract, in connection with the execution of work whereunder the peti¬tioners were alleged to have committed of¬fences, on the basis of the complaint and ma¬terial accompanying therewith, which when considered, in right perspective and accord¬ing to law, would not indicate the commis¬sion of any offence by the petitioners. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for quashing the proceedings imposing exemplary costs on the respondent-complainant for abusing the process of the Court, which had resulted in harassment and severe inconve¬nience to the petitioners. 8. Per contra, referring to Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal and another, reported as (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 364 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2195 : 2009 AIR SCW 2890), learned counsel for the respondent submit¬ted that the process issued by the learned Magistrate against the petitioners may not warrant interference by this Court in exer¬cise of its inherent jurisdiction, in that, the complaint and the material accompanying therewith amply demonstrates the commis¬sion of offences by the petitioners for which they are liable to be proceeded against. 9. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the learned Magistrate besides the documents placed on records by the pe¬titioners. The case law cited at the Bar too has been taken note of. 10. Before dealing with the contentions raised at the Bar, reference needs to be made to the documents placed on records by the petitioners. 11. The case law cited at the Bar too has been taken note of. 10. Before dealing with the contentions raised at the Bar, reference needs to be made to the documents placed on records by the petitioners. 11. Besides a copy of the Contract Agree¬ment, the petitioners have placed on records, copies of the plaint filed by the respondent in the Court of District Judge, Samba and orders dated 21-11-2009 and 27-3-2010 of the learned District Judge on the respondent's application seeking injunctive directions against the petitioners, besides a copy of the respondent's Civil First Miscellaneous Ap¬peal against order dated 27-3-2010 filed in this Court. 12. The documents referred to hereinabove reveal that the respondent-complainant had filed a Suit for Manadatory injunction seek¬ing Court's Command against the petition¬ers to supply it requisite material as per the work order for completion of the Mechani¬cal work allotted to it at Industrial Growth Centre Phase-II, Samba, besides a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the peti¬tioners from carrying out any kind of fabri¬cation or other work which they had allotted to Engineers Associate Fabricators and Erec¬tors, 351/7 Railon Road, Granthi Bagh, Gandhi Nagar, Ropar, Punjab. 13. The statement of Sandeep Singh Maini, Managing Director of the respondent, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Samba on 28-12-2010 too needs to be noticed at this stage. 14. It is stated by Mr. Maini that pursuant to the Contract allotted to GTB Project Fab¬ricators Private Limited, the Company had executed works for about 1½ crores of ru¬pees but only Rs. 50 lac were paid by M/s. Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. whereas they were required to pay 60% of the amount within seven (07) days of the submission of the Bills for the work by them. Rather than paying the amount for the work done by the respondent, the Company and its function¬aries, pursuant to a conspiracy, allotted the respondent's remaining work to Engineers Associate Fabricators and Erectors retaining the machinery and equipment that the com¬plainant had kept at site. 15. Although the complainant did not spell out in its complaint, about the receipt of Rs. 50 lac from the respondents as part payment for the work done by it for the accused, yet perusal of the copies of the Bills raised and the statement of accounts annexed with the complaint, do indicate receipt of Rs. 84,58,834.19 by the complainant from the petitioners-accused up to March 31, 2010. 50 lac from the respondents as part payment for the work done by it for the accused, yet perusal of the copies of the Bills raised and the statement of accounts annexed with the complaint, do indicate receipt of Rs. 84,58,834.19 by the complainant from the petitioners-accused up to March 31, 2010. 16. It would be advantageous to refer to the interim orders of the learned District Judge, passed on the complainant-respondent's Application seeking injunctive directions. These read thus :- "In the Court of Ld. District Judge, Samba. Present: Suresh Kumar Sharma M/s. G. T. B. Project Pvt. Ltd., Head Of-fice-1621, Sector 70, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab), Branch Office at Ex-UNO House, UNO Lane, Talab Tillo, Jammu (J&K) Through its Managing Director, Sandeep Singh Maini, S/o Shri Birinder Singh Maini, R/o 44 BC, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. VERSUS Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and others. SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNC¬TION Application under O. 39 Rr. 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. ORDER 21-11-2009. Plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory in¬junction directing the defendants 1 to 4 to supply the requisite material for completion of the mechanical work allotted to the plain¬tiff by the said defendants and also restrain¬ing the defendants from terminating the con¬tract. Plaintiff is a private limited Company and are assigned the work of construction and fabrication of the plant at SIDCO Phase II, Samba after the tender of the plaintiff was accepted by the defendants 1 to 4 and letter of intent dated 25-12-2008 was issued in favour of the plaintiff for the fabrication and construction of the said plant, whereupon, the plaintiff made all the arrangements for fab¬rication and construction of the said plant. However, the material as to be supplied by the defendant which was not supplied in time and defendant did not furnish the drawings which caused delay in complete work. Plain¬tiff has completed 70 to 80 per cent of the assigned work. However, the delay in completion of the work has been caused by the defendants. In not furnishing the mate¬rial and the drawing of the plant in time as stated earlier. Now the defendants are threat¬ening to terminate the contract and assign the same to the defendant No.5 contrary to the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties and the letter of intent issued to the plaintiff. In not furnishing the mate¬rial and the drawing of the plant in time as stated earlier. Now the defendants are threat¬ening to terminate the contract and assign the same to the defendant No.5 contrary to the terms and conditions arrived at between the parties and the letter of intent issued to the plaintiff. Along with the suit the plaintiff has also filed an application for temporary injunction which was supported by an affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the material of the file. The letter of intent stands issued in favour of the applicant/plaintiff for completion of the work at SIDCO phase II, Samba, Jammu for the fabrication of the factory of the de¬fendants 1 to 4 which though was to be com¬pleted within a period of six months. How¬ever from the perusal of the photo copy of work chart, it appeared that the same was provided on 22-5-2009. Plaintiff has asserted that the work could not be completed as work sheet itself was issued as late as on 22-5-2009. Applicant/plaintiff has asserted that the defendants 1 to 4 are going to terminate the contract and al¬lot the same to defendant No. 1 and in case the non-applicants/defendants are not re¬strained at this stage, the applicant shall be put to irreparable loss and injury. From the material on record, the matter seems to be of an emergent nature, in case notice as envisaged under law is not dis¬pensed with, the applicant will be put to great loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money. As such, prior notice at this stage is dispensed with. The applicant has already made all the ar¬rangements for one fabrication and construc¬tion of the plant on spot and the already com¬pleted 70 to 80% of the construction and the delay caused in execution of the work ap¬pears prima facie due to defendants 1 to 4, thus, the applicant has been able to show a prima facie case in his favour and in case, the contract is terminated by the defendants 1 to 4 it will cause irreparable loss and in¬jury to the plaintiff, since the applicant has already made all the arrangements for the fabrication and construction of the plant al¬lotted to him, balance of convenience lies in his favour. Issue notice to the other side and put up on 27th November, 2009. Issue notice to the other side and put up on 27th November, 2009. In the meanwhile, defendants 1 to 4 are restrained from termi¬nating the contract allotted to the plaintiff in respect of the concerned work in case the contract is still subsisting and defendant No. 5 is also restrained from carrying on the con¬struction work of the Plaintiff. Thus, how¬ever, is subject to the objection of the other side. Put up on 27th of November, 2009. Sd/- Announced Principal District 21-11 -2009 Judge, Samba "In the Court of District Judge, Samba. GTB v. Surya Pharmaceuticals. 27-3-2010 :- Counsel for parties are present. Plaintiff Sandeep Singh Maini, Managing Director of M/s. G. T. B. Project Fabricators is also present. Sarvesh Sachan, G. M. of Surya Pharmaceuticals Ltd., i.e. defendant No. 4 is also present. Counsels for parties have agreed at the Bar, that joint measurement of work (mechanical) already executed by plaintiff shall be measured, assessed by Monday 29th March 2010. Plaintiff shall be entitled to re¬move his machinery and equipment lying inside the Unit. Counsels for defendants has also agreed to consider and expedite the pay¬ment due to plaintiff for works, he has ex¬ecuted at the plant. Plaintiff shall not cause any obstruction in the execution of work (me¬chanical) by defendant No. 5, till the joint final assessment report is filed. Put up on 30-3-2010. Sd/- (Judge)" 17. Perusal of the learned District Judge's Order of 27-3-2010 indicates about the settle¬ment which the parties had agreed to in re¬spect of the dispute regarding the execution of the Contract in question. In terms of the orders, the respondent-M/s. GTB Project Fabricators Private Ltd. had undertaken be¬fore the Court that it would not cause any obstruction in the execution of work by En¬gineers Associate Fabricators and Erectors till the final assessment report was filed. 18. It further comes out from the order that joint measurement of the work already ex¬ecuted by the respondent had to be taken and assessed and the machinery and equipment lying inside the Unit were to be removed by it. 19. The respondent-complainant neither referred to the pendency of its Civil Suit against the petitioners in the Court of Dis¬trict Judge, Samba nor did it mention about the interim orders passed on its application seeking issuance of injunctive directions, in its complaint before the learned judicial Magistrate. 19. The respondent-complainant neither referred to the pendency of its Civil Suit against the petitioners in the Court of Dis¬trict Judge, Samba nor did it mention about the interim orders passed on its application seeking issuance of injunctive directions, in its complaint before the learned judicial Magistrate. Pendency of its Appeal against the orders of learned District Judge, in this Court, too was not indicated in the complaint. 20. The respondent's act of moving the Criminal Court by its complaint, without in¬dicating the pendency of Civil Litigation between the parties on the subject matter of the complaint and the fact of subsisting in¬terim directions of the Court in respect of the subject matter, appears to be a deliberate attempt of the respondent to pressurize and harass the petitioners by putting the crimi¬nal law into motion against them, and, that too, suppressing the material facts, which, if disclosed, would not have led to the initia¬tion of process against the petitioners. 21. This apart, the statement of the respondent's Managing Director in the Criminal Court, eloquently speaks of the respondent's latent intention of recovering the amount allegedly payable to it by the pe¬titioner, through the medium of the com¬plaint. 22. The allegations made by the respon¬dent-complainant in its complaint against the petitioners that the petitioners had induced it to work for them without having any in¬tention of paying them therefor and retain¬ing their machinery and equipment, which according to them amounted to their com¬mitting offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 RPC, are not supported by the material placed by the complainant with its complaint and the statement which its Man¬aging Director had made on oath before the learned Judicial Magistrate, in that, the docu¬ments annexed with the complaint clearly demonstrate receipt of part payment by the respondent for the work it had done for the petitioners. 23. The very basis of the complaint that the petitioners had induced the respondent to work for them and had from the very be¬ginning, absolutely no intention to pay for the work, therefore, stands demolished by the material, which the respondent had itself placed on the records of the learned Magis¬trate. 24. 23. The very basis of the complaint that the petitioners had induced the respondent to work for them and had from the very be¬ginning, absolutely no intention to pay for the work, therefore, stands demolished by the material, which the respondent had itself placed on the records of the learned Magis¬trate. 24. There was, therefore, no material with the learned Magistrate, on the basis whereof process for commission of offences punish¬able under the Ranbir Penal Code could be issued against the petitioners additionally because the dispute projected appears to be a pure civil dispute between the parties. 25. It further comes out from the material placed on records of the learned Magistrate that without there being any specific allega¬tion by the complainant against the function¬aries of petitioner No. 1, the process was issued against them by the learned Magistrate, in a routine manner, without appreciating that the process issued by a Criminal Court for trial of the persons so summoned, takes away their fundamental right to personal liberty, which course could be adopted, only if spe¬cific allegations were there in the complaint and that too supported by the sworn testi¬mony of the complainant and his witnesses before the Magistrate and any other material in support thereof, but not otherwise. 26. The facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, demonstrate that the learned Magistrate has acted illegally and in haste in proceeding to summon fourteen persons of two concerns when there were no specific allegations against them either in the com¬plaint or in the statements recorded on oath their role leading to the commission of al¬leged offences. 27. The contents of the complaint, when read with the material placed on the records of the learned Magistrate by the respondent-complainant itself, do not reveal the exist¬ence of such facts and circumstances, on the basis whereof, it be said that the ingredients of the Sections for which the petitioners were summoned had been made out, in that, dis¬honest intention attributed to the petitioners in only extracting work from the respondent without any intention of making payment therefor, is not at all made out. 28. 28. Respondent's learned counsel's contention that the respondent's complaint did, prima facie, indicate commission of offence by the petitioners is, therefore, found without merit and the complaint is, on the other hand, found vexatious and frivolous, de¬signed to settle the civil dispute between the parties by putting the Criminal Law into motion. 29. The Criminal Courts have been time and again cautioned to be vigilant in not en¬tertaining such type of complaints but the learned Magistrate has faulted in not observ¬ing the caution and her omission so to do has resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court. 30. Romi Dhar v. State of West Bengal and others referred to by the respondent's learned counsel, may not be of any help to the complainant for the dispute, which has arisen in the present case does not pertain to the effect of compromise in civil proceed¬ings on the maintainability of the criminal action, dealing therewith it was ruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that civil and criminal proceedings could, in the circumstances of the case, proceed simultaneously, as the criminal offences, in that case, were stated to have been committed by the persons in obtaining loan. 31. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of the present case, where the complainant is found to have misused the process of the criminal Court to seek redressal of its alleged grievance against the petitioners for recovering the amount, which is stated to have remained unpaid by the pe¬titioners. 32. For all what has been said above, the process issued by the learned Judicial Mag¬istrate (Munsiff), Samba against the petition¬ers on the respondent's complaint deserves to be quashed. 33. This petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed quashing the pro¬ceedings initiated by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Munsiff), Samba on respondent's complaint, with compensatory costs assessed at Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondent to the petitioners within eight weeks. Petition allowed. ____