ORDER : 1. The petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 25.06.2014 passed in C.C. No. 16613/2014 by the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City for registration of case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. Counsel for the respondent is absent. No representation. 3. The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the private complaint dated 23.6.2011 filed by respondent-complainant the learned 5th ACMM, Bangalore City has passed an order for registering the case for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B of IPC. The allegations are that the first petitioner is a private limited company, petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are the directors of the said company. As per the agreement entered into between the company and the respondent-complainant he was entitled to a monthly remuneration of Rs. 60,000/-. But the company has failed to make the payment since the date of his appointment i.e. on 25.03.2008, thereby the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 506 read with Section 120-B of IPC. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has strenuously contended that even though there was an agreement between the company and the respondent- complainant for payment of salary as per Annexure ‘J’ there was a condition for payment of salary/perquisites which shall be effective from the date fixed by the Board of Directors in consultation with the respondent-complainant, but no such consultation has taken place. As such, the date from which the remuneration has to be paid was not fixed. The correspondence made by the respondent counsel with the directors at Annexures F, F1, F2 and G clearly indicates that the respondent counsel was not working for the company in his official capacity. Even assuming that there was an agreement for payment of salary and the company has failed to make the payment, the said transaction is only of a civil nature. There are no grounds to prove that the petitioners have committed the fraudulent acts with the dishonest intention to cheat the respondent counsel. These factors are not at all considered by the learned 5th ACMM. Thus the order dated 25.06.2014 in C.C. No. 16613/2014 is bad in law. 5. There are no grounds to prove that the petitioners have committed the fraudulent acts with the dishonest intention to cheat the respondent counsel. These factors are not at all considered by the learned 5th ACMM. Thus the order dated 25.06.2014 in C.C. No. 16613/2014 is bad in law. 5. As could be seen from the records the document at Annexure ‘J’ is the appointment letter, but there is no specific direction as to from which date the respondent is entitled for salary. According to clause 4, the payment of salary and other perks shall have to be effective from the date fixed by the Board of Directors in consultation with the respondent complainant. According to the Senior counsel for the petitioner the project has not taken place. As per the document at Annexure ‘H’ the respondent complainant was paid 5000 US dollars in respect of the project which was for a limited period. According to Annexure ‘H’ the Phase-I of the project was to come to an end by 30.04.2008. Subsequent to that, the Phase-II project has not taken of. Under these circumstances there is no question of payment of salary to the respondent. 6. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the power has to be used for preventing the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint disclose a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein; whether there is essential ingredients of criminal offence or not has to be judged based on the facts narrated in the complaint. In the instant case the averments made in the complaint clearly indicate that the transaction regarding payment of salary and other perquisites was of civil nature and the dispute regarding non payment of the salary is purely of civil nature. In such a situation, when civil remedy is available, the same will be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of process of Court. 7. As already discussed above, the averments made in the complaint and the documents placed on record clearly goes to show that the entire transaction was of a civil nature. As such, there are valid grounds for setting aside the order dated 25.06.2014 and quashing the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said order. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The criminal petition is allowed. As such, there are valid grounds for setting aside the order dated 25.06.2014 and quashing the proceedings initiated in pursuance of the said order. Hence I proceed to pass the following: ORDER: The criminal petition is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2014 passed in C.C. No. 16613/2014 by the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City is quashed.