1. OIKOS India Private Limited entered into an Agreement with M/C K.C. Hotels Private Limited to supply Paint for latter's new Hotel at Katra. The Paint which was to be supplied had five years warranty for Anti fungal property, Water repellency, Flexibility and Non fading. 2. According to M/S K.C.Hotels Private Limited, the respondent, the Paint supplied by OIKOS India Private Limited, through its agent M/S Mayur Interiors, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu started fading away after two years. The respondent's request for supplying the paint afresh for its application to the Hotel appears to have been accepted by the supplier Company but with the condition that labour charges for application of the Paint had to be borne by the respondent. 3. The aforementioned condition of the Supplier does not appear to have been accepted by the respondent, wJuo, accordingly, filed a Complaint against Mr. Deepak Gupta, Managing Director, Miss Deepika Singh, the Business Head and Mr. Sunil Kaul, the agent of OIKOS India Private Limited. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Forest Cases), Jammu issued process against the petitioners on the respondent's Complaint vide his order of April 30, 2010. 5. The Business Head and the Managing Director of OIKOS India Private Limited have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them on the respondent's Complaint. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case law cited at the Bar. 7. Perusal of the preliminary statements of the Managing Director and the witness of the respondent Company, the Complaint and the accompanying docu­ments, reveals that the complainant had accused the petitioners of their failure to re-do the paint, stated to have been faded away after two years of its application, in respect whereof the petitioners' Company had given five years' warranty. It comes out from the Complaint that the deal for re-doing the paint had not been finalized because the complainant had not agreed to bear the labour charges for re-doing the paint, which the supplier Company had agreed to supply afresh. 8. The question that, therefore, arises for determination in this Petition is as to whether the complainant's allegations in the Complaint and the statements made in support thereof make out the commission of any offence for which the petition­ers- accused can be proceeded against. 9. In terms of Section 415 of the Ranbir Penal Code Svt. 8. The question that, therefore, arises for determination in this Petition is as to whether the complainant's allegations in the Complaint and the statements made in support thereof make out the commission of any offence for which the petition­ers- accused can be proceeded against. 9. In terms of Section 415 of the Ranbir Penal Code Svt. 1989, the offence of cheating would be made out against any person, who had intentionally induced the person deceived to do or omit to do anything, which he would not so do or omit had he been not so deceived and such deception was likely to cause damage or harm to the person deceived in body, mind, reputation or property. 10. There is no such allegation in the Complaint nor do the statements of the Complainant's Managing Director and its witness, indicate any such thing on the basis whereof it be said that OIKOS India Private Limited had fraudulently and dishonestly induced M/S K.C. Hotels Private Limited to accept its paint. The dispute, which had led to the filing of the Complaint appears to be the disagreement between the parties on the issue as to who would bear the labour charges for coat of the paint, in that, according to the complainant, the supplier Company was liable to bear the charges whereas the supplier Company would require M/S K.C.Hotels Private Limited to bear the charges. It, therefore, becomes apparent that the dispute, which had given rise to the filing of the Complaint was a pure and simple civil dispute between the parties which does not in any way hint at the commission of any offence punishable under the Ranbir Penal Code. 11. The dispute between the parties.as to whether the warranty extended by the supplier Company would include re-doing of Paint without paying for labour charges, cannot by any stretch of reasoning be said to be such an act of the supplier Company which may amount to their having committed the offence of cheating. 12. The Complaint and the statemer s in support thereof do not spell out supplier Company's intention right from the very beginning of the transaction to fraudulently or dishonestly induce M/S K.C. Hotels Private Limited to accept its offer and purchase the paint for its application to its building. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mohd. 12. The Complaint and the statemer s in support thereof do not spell out supplier Company's intention right from the very beginning of the transaction to fraudulently or dishonestly induce M/S K.C. Hotels Private Limited to accept its offer and purchase the paint for its application to its building. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mohd. Habibur Rehman Faizi and others reported as 1996 Cr.L.J.1877 and Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and others reported as AIR 1999 Supreme Court 3499 referred to by the respondent-complainant's learned counsel, Mr. S.K.Anand, have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, which are materially different from those on which the judgments above referred were delivered. 13. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan lal and others reported as AIR 1992 Supreme Court 604 and relying upon Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another reported as AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2341, G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad and others reported as AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2474 and Alpic Finance Ltd. V. Sadasivan and another reported as AIR 2001 Supreme Court 1226, it is found that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class had acted illegally in issuing process against the petitioners on the respondent's Complaint, which does not disclose the commission of any offence much less the one punish­able under Section 420 RFC. 14. The proceedings initiated by the learned Magistrate on respondent No. 1' Complaint has resulted in the abuse of the process of the Court, warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. 15. This Petition, therefore, succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed quashing the proceedings initiated on respondent No. 1's Complaint against the petitioners and respondent No. 2.