ORDER : 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi, whereby and where under cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A complaint case was instituted by the opposite party no. 2 wherein it was alleged that there was a business relationship between the complainant and the petitioner for supply of building materials. It has been stated that an advance amount of Rs.69,095/- was given to the petitioner for supply of building materials but neither the same was supplied nor amount was returned. Subsequently, it has been alleged that a cheque of Rs.5000/- was given as well as a cheque of Rs.40,000/-was given to the complainant, which was never presented to the bank. Allegation has also been levelled that a hand note dated 10.10.2008 was given amounting to Rs.64,789/- to be refunded @ Rs.5000/- per month but the said promise was also not adhered to by the petitioner leading to institution of Complaint Case No. 674 of 2010. 4. An enquiry was conducted and subsequent thereto vide order dated 11.05.2011, the complaint petition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, against which, a revision was preferred being Cr. Revision No. 71 of 2011 wherein the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi was set aside and thereafter vide order dated 16.02.2012, learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi had taken cognizance for the offence punishable under sections 323, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subsequent order taking cognizance dated 16.02.2012 was on the basis of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 71 of 2011 but the said order was not in accordance with law since admittedly the petitioner was never noticed in the said revision. It has further been submitted that the complaint petition itself reveals that the dispute is with respect to monetary transaction arising out of business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant and such circumstance cannot be a basis for institution of a criminal case. It has further been submitted that the complaint petition itself reveals that the dispute is with respect to monetary transaction arising out of business relationship between the petitioner and the complainant and such circumstance cannot be a basis for institution of a criminal case. It has also been stated that the complainant himself has admitted that the cheques were never deposited and not a single chit of paper has been produced to substantiate the claim made in the complaint petition and considering the said fact learned Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 11.05.2011. It has thus been submitted that initiation of criminal case itself is a malicious prosecution upon the petitioner by the complainant and thus the entire criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2, has submitted that the building materials were supplied to the petitioner but the amount was not returned and the cheques were subsequently dishonored. It has been submitted that this fact has rightly been considered by the revisional court and there is no error in the order taking cognizance. 7. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties seem to be two fold. The first argument is with respect to revisional order dated 21.01.2012 as no notice was given to the petitioner before the said order was passed. Since the complaint petition was dismissed on 11.05.2011 and the complainant had preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Ranchi, it was incumbent upon the revisional court to have noticed the petitioner. Moreover, the learned revisional court seems to have usurped the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate while coming to a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused persons. Apart from the illegality committed by the revisional court in the order dated 21.01.2012, the ingredients for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the IPC is absent from bare perusal of the complaint petition. The complainant and the petitioner were having a business relationship with respect to supply of building materials. The allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner, at best can invite civil consequences and there does not seem to be any criminal element present in the complaint petition. 8. The complainant and the petitioner were having a business relationship with respect to supply of building materials. The allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner, at best can invite civil consequences and there does not seem to be any criminal element present in the complaint petition. 8. As a cumulative result of the discussions made herein above, this application is allowed and entire criminal proceedings in connection with complaint case no. 674 of 2010 including the order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the learned S.D.J.M. Ranchi, by which, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. Application allowed.