JUDGMENT 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur, in Complaint Case No.461 of 2011 by which the learned Magistrate after holding enquiry has found prima facie case against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 417, 418, 420 Indian Penal Code. 2. Brief facts as alleged in the Complaint Petition is that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Bajrang Traders dealing in fertilizer and caster cake business. The petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of M/s Sri Raghvendra Traders and the petitioner No.2 is the Commission Agent of petitioner No.1. The case of the complainant is that on 20.10.2010, accused No.3 (petitioner No.2) came to the complainant’s shop and introduced himself as agent of M/s Raghvendra Traders, Hyderabad, duly authorized to book orders, collect advance money and deliver caster cakes. The complainant thereafter had telephonic talk with petitioner No.1, who told him that petitioner No.2 is his authorized agent and he could finalize the business transaction with him. The complainant entered into business negotiation with petitioner No.2 having faith on the words of petitioner No.1 and ordered for caster cake @ Rs.6940/- per Metric Ton. The complainant paid Rs.ten lacs as advance money for the same. The complainant had to bear 2% CST as well as transportation cost of caster cakes from Hyderabad to Samastipur. It was also agreed that the complainant would provide empty bags to the firm of the petitioner No.1 for the caster cakes. 3. The complainant after finalizing the deal, transferred Rs.five lacs on 22.10.2010 and Rs.five lacs on 25.10.2010; total Rs.ten lacs from the account of Central Bank of India to the account of the petitioner No.1 at Karuna Vaishya Bank, Hyderabad. The complainant after transferring the aforesaid amount in the account of petitioner No.1 also made arrangement for supply of plastic bags worth Rs.two lacs thirty five thousand to the petitioner No.1 in Hyderabad from Patwari Plastic Pvt. Limited. Thereafter, the petitioner waited to receive the supply of caster cakes from the accused persons but the same was not received within the agreed time. Thereafter, the complainant requested the accused persons via SMS and other sources to send the caster cakes and the accused persons assured that the caster cakes would be sent to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner waited to receive the supply of caster cakes from the accused persons but the same was not received within the agreed time. Thereafter, the complainant requested the accused persons via SMS and other sources to send the caster cakes and the accused persons assured that the caster cakes would be sent to the complainant. In the meantime, peak season for agriculture arrived. The complainant went to Hyderabad by JET Airways, but the accused persons told the complainant that because of less production, materials could not be delivered and on assurance of the accused persons the complainant returned to Samastipur, but not a single instalment of caster cakes was received by him from the accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused persons on 15.03.2011, but neither any satisfactory reply was given nor caster cakes were delivered. The complainant always sent SMS and contacted on mobile phones but the accused persons always gave false assurance and in this manner, they have committed fraud and cheating with the complainant by taking Rs.ten lacs in the form of advance money and also empty bags worth Rs.two lacs thirty five thousand. 4. The learned Magistrate after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation and recording statement of the witnesses found prima facie case against these petitioners by the impugned order for the offence under Sections 417, 418, 420 Indian Penal Code. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that after due negotiation with the complainant it was agreed that 1000 ton of caster cakes will be sold to the complainant’s firm @ Rs.7225/- per metric ton plus CST. Entire amount of Rs.72,25,000/- was to be paid before lifting the caster cakes. The delivery was to be made between 25.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 and the customer Bajrang Traders had to take delivery from the premises of M/s Raghvendra Traders at Hyderabad. 6. The complainant paid Rs.ten lacs as advance money in two installments to the petitioner No.1 on two days and the same was deposited in the account of the firm. The accused firm made ready the required 1000 tons caster cakes in the plastic bags and the same was stored in the premises of the accused-firm for the complainant to take delivery of the entire stock after paying the balance amount of Rs.62,25,000/- between 25.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 as mentioned in the contract. The accused firm made ready the required 1000 tons caster cakes in the plastic bags and the same was stored in the premises of the accused-firm for the complainant to take delivery of the entire stock after paying the balance amount of Rs.62,25,000/- between 25.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 as mentioned in the contract. The complainant did not come to take delivery. Numerous calls were made to the broker Raj Enterprises at Unjha, Gujarat, as well as to the complainant, but the complainant did not lift the stock. The Opposite Party No.3- Raj Enterprises thereafter requested the accused-firm to deliver 250 tons out of 1000 tons packed for the complainant to a company named M/s Girnar Industries, Gujarat @6200/- per metric ton plus CST as per the instruction of the complainant. In terms of the said request, consignment was delivered to Girnar Industries. Balance750 Metric tons caster cakes are still lying in the premises of the accused firm for the complainant to take delivery of the same. The complainant did not take delivery of caster cakes despite several reminders then debit advice dated 15.12.2010 along with a forwarding letter was sent by the accused-firm to the complainant, wherein, it was stated that since the complainant has failed to take delivery of the consignment, the rate difference amount and other expenses incurred by the accused firm amounting to Rs.1,90,000/- be cleared soon. The complainant instead of replying the said letter, sent legal notice dated 14.03.2011, making false allegation as an after thought. The petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever. The civil dispute has been given criminal colour by the complainant only to blackmail the petitioners. 7. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that entire transaction relates to commercial transaction and the same is outside the ambit of criminal offence and give rise to purely civil cause of action, which can be duly executed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 8. The petitioners have relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Gangadhar Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and anr. reported in 2008 (56) BLJR 1693 (Pat), Padam Chand Garg @ Padam Chand Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr. reported in 2016(3)PLJR 258 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.W.Palanitkar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241. 9. reported in 2008 (56) BLJR 1693 (Pat), Padam Chand Garg @ Padam Chand Gupta and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr. reported in 2016(3)PLJR 258 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.W.Palanitkar and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 241. 9. The counsel for the complainant-Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that defence of the accused cannot be looked at the stage of holding enquiry. It is admitted position that Rs.ten lacs as advance money was sent in the account of the accused persons for delivery of caster cakes and the petitioners instead of making delivery of caster cakes made out false case and raised false claim against the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/-. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and another reported in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 439 and has argued that the Court can quash charge-sheet when the allegations in the First Information Report and the Complaint Petition do not disclose the commission of offence even if taken at their face value and accepted in its entirety. The dispute being primarily of civil nature is not by itself a ground to quash criminal case because in case of forgery and fraud there would always be some element of civil nature. 10. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has further submitted that save and except in very exceptional circumstances the Court would not look into any document relied by the accused in support of his defence. The inherent power of High Court under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is primarily for either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court at that stage would not embark upon appreciation of evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kalyani V. Janak C. Mehta reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 has laid down that: “(1) The High Court ordinarily would not exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash a criminal proceeding and, in particular, a First Information Report unless the allegations contained therein, even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety, disclosed no cognizable offence. (2) For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence. (3) Such a power should be exercised very sparingly. If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus. (4) If the allegation discloses a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.” 11. In the instant case, from the Complaint Petition itself, it is apparent that Rs.ten lacs has been transferred by the complainant in the account of the petitioner No.1 after finalizing the deal with the petitioner No.2, which fact is also admitted by the petitioners. The complainant also supplied empty plastic bags worth Rs.two lacs thirty five thousand to the petitioners for supply of caster cakes as per the agreement, but not a single installment of caster cakes were supplied by the accused persons to the complainant and when the complainant insisted for supply of caster cakes as per the agreement the petitioners did not supply the same. 12. During course of argument, it has been admitted on behalf of the petitioners that they did not supply the caster cakes to the complainant and made out defence that the complainant did not take delivery of caster cakes between 25.10.2010 to 05.11.2010 after making payment of the balance amount. 13. The Magistrate at the stage of enquiry is required only to see prima facie case on the basis of the allegations made in the Complaint Petition and the statement of the witnesses recorded during enquiry. The Magistrate is not required to look into the defence of the accused at the stage of enquiry. 14. The defence, as raised by the petitioners in the instant application, was not, at all, relevant for the Magistrate, who found prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 417, 418, and 420 Indian Penal Code on the basis of the allegations made in the Complaint Petition and the statement of the witnesses recorded during enquiry. 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur, in Complaint Case No.461 of 2011. 15. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Samastipur, in Complaint Case No.461 of 2011. 16. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.