ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 although in the affidavit filed by the petitioners, an averment has been made that notice to opposite party no.2 has been validly served. 2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 5.12.2002 by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal code in connection with Complaint Case No. C-581 of 2002 (T.R. No. 3605 of 2002) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. 3. The prosecution story as it would appear from the complaint petition instituted by opposite party no.2 herein, is that the complainant was the owner of Sony Agency, Barhi and a firm namely Surya Roshini Ltd. Ranchi told him to become a commission agent for which he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) as security money with the further condition that he will be given 10% commission on the sale of materials of Surya Roshini Ltd. On such promise, the complaint (opposite party no.2 herein) had paid Rs. 10,000/-to the officials of Surya Roshini Ltd. by bank draft bearing No. 001720 dated 8.10.2001. It was also alleged therein that after becoming the commission agent of Surya Roshini Ltd., the complainant began to sell electrical articles and appliances. It was alleged that substandard quality of 31 pieces of Surya Tube lights, 8 Bulbs were supplied and in spite of repeated requests, the same were not replaced resulting in the complainant ultimately stopping the sale of articles of Surya Roshini. In the complaint petition, it was also alleged that as per the terms and conditions, the complainant should have been refunded his security money of Rs. 10,000/- along with commission of Rs. 1,448/-and Rs. 1200/-being the cost of replacement/damaged materials but inspite of repeated requests, the same were not returned resulting in the institution of the complaint case. After enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 5.12.2002. 4. After enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 5.12.2002. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the order dated 5.12.2002 by submitting that this case has been instituted by suppressing the actual facts of the case and that the impugned order shows total non-application of judicial mind on the part of the concerned court. He has further submitted that from a perusal of the complaint petition, it would reveal that the dispute was confined only with respect to refund of the security amount as well as the commission on the sale of the materials. He has further submitted that the complaint petition does not reveal any criminal intent on the part of the petitioner and no offence of criminal breach of trust have been made out against the petitioners. He has also submitted that prior to appointing the complainant (opposite party no.2 herein) as a commission agent, an agreement was entered into and from perusal of the terms and conditions of the agreement, it appears that supply of defective materials were dealt with in Clause 9 and 10 of the said agreement. As regard the refund of the security amount and the commission which the complainant (opposite party no.2 herein) was entitled to, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to a certificate given by IDBI Bank dated 30.12.2002 that the cheque which was issued in favour of Sony Agency was presented to the bank on 2.8.2002 and the same was also duly passed by the bank. He, therefore submits that although the complaint was instituted on 9.7.2002 but the cheque was passed by the bank on 2.8.2002 and even thereafter at the time of inquiry the complainant kept mum and did not disclose about the fact with respect to the payment which has been received by him. 5. He, therefore submits that although the complaint was instituted on 9.7.2002 but the cheque was passed by the bank on 2.8.2002 and even thereafter at the time of inquiry the complainant kept mum and did not disclose about the fact with respect to the payment which has been received by him. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that from a perusal of the complaint, it appears that defective materials were supplied by the petitioners to the complainant (opposite party no.2 herein) and the amount, which was to be paid to the complainant was held up by the petitioners and thus it can be said that an offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that complaint petition has been instituted with respect to the dispute in which complainant (opposite party no.2 herein) was appointed as a commission agent of the firm of the petitioners but the commission was not paid to the complainant and even the security amount was not refunded to the complainant in spite of the fact that agreement between both the parties was terminated. Thus, the dispute basically revolves around the nonpayment of such amount. The amount of commission as well as the security deposit has already been refunded through a cheque, which would be evident from the certificate granted by IDBI bank on 30.12.2002. Moreover, the complainant (opposite party no.2 herein) had kept silent with respect to the payment, which has been received by him though cognizance was taken much after the said payment was received by him. All these facts casts doubts upon the intention of the complainant in filing and pursuing the complaint case. 7. Consequent to what has been discussed above, I do find merit in this application. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 5.12.2002 by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal code in connection with Complaint Case No. C-581 of 2002 (T.R. No. 3605 of 2002) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, is hereby quashed. 8. This application is accordingly allowed.