Order Heard Mrs. K.P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of O.P. No. 2 in spite of valid service of notice upon him. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C. Case No. 100 of 2011 including the order dated 20.12.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A complaint petition was filed by the opposite party no.2 herein, in which it was alleged that the complainant runs his business in the name and style of M/s Building Centre and deals in building material. It has been alleged that on 16.01.2008, the representative of the petitioner company had come to the business premises of the complainant and convinced to sell the products of the petitioner company. On being convinced and on believing the assurance given by the representative of the petitioner company that the complainant shall not have to suffer any business loss and all the grievances of the complainant will be redressed with respect to the business for the products, in which a security deposit of Rs. 21,000/- was taken by the petitioner company an agreement was also entered into on 30.10.2008, which was valid for a period of one year. It has been alleged that the accused-petitioner did not follow the terms and conditions of the agreement and that short billing amount of Rs.18,242/- was made. It has also been alleged therein that there was intentional short supply of Rs.19,944/- and although the same was informed to the petitioner company but no action was taken. It has also been alleged that on account of defective materials, short billing, short supply and refundable security deposit, the Company was approached on several occasions but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, as a result of which, P.C. Case No. 100 of 2011 was filed. 4. After conducting an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses, cognizance was taken vide order dated 20.12.2012 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Saraikella for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. 4. After conducting an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as his witnesses, cognizance was taken vide order dated 20.12.2012 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Saraikella for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire allegation is arising out of business transaction between both the sides. There is no ingredient of criminal breach of trust, as is evident from the allegation made against the petitioner. He has further submitted that an agreement was entered into between both the sides and even if for the sake of argument it is admitted that the agreement has not been properly followed by the petitioner, in such circumstances, the remedy lies before the Civil Court and the complainant only with a view to pressurize the petitioner has implicated him in this present criminal case. 6. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that there was a short supply of the materials as also a short billing amount of Rs.18.242/-as would be evident from paragraphs 7 and 8 of complaint petition and as such there being an intention on the part of the petitioner to deliberately make short supply of the materials as well as supply of defective materials, the case under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out and no illegality has been committed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella in his order dated 20.12.2012. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, I find that the entire complaint petition revolves around the dispute with respect to the business transaction between the petitioner company and the complainant. The complainant in his complaint petition had categorically stated that he has grievance of supply of defective materials, short billing, short supply and refundable security deposit. It has also been admitted by the complainant in his complaint petition that he was appointed as a dealer to sell the products of the petitioner company as mentioned here in above. The grievance of the complainant as would appear from the complaint petition is restricted to non fulfillment of the agreement. It has also been admitted by the complainant in his complaint petition that he was appointed as a dealer to sell the products of the petitioner company as mentioned here in above. The grievance of the complainant as would appear from the complaint petition is restricted to non fulfillment of the agreement. Thus, since the allegation itself reveals a dispute with regard to commercial transaction between both the sides and in absence of any criminal intent on the part of the petitioner in the complaint petition, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of the court. Moreover, the deception, which the complainant in his complaint petition has tried to project, is absent from its very inception. In such circumstances, no case under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. 8. In view of what has been discussed above, I do find merit in this application. This application is, accordingly, allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C. Case No. 100 of 2011 including the order dated 20.12.2012, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikella, whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed. Application allowed.