JUDGMENT : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel informed the Court that the opposite party no. 2 has taken the file from him two years back and he has no instruction to argue the case and it was observed by the Court that O.P. No. 2 is required to make alternative arrangement to pursue the case on his behalf and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned. 2. Today when the matters were taken up nobody responded on behalf of O.P. No. 2 accordingly, these matters are being heard on merit. 3. Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Priya Shrestha and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the State. 4. In both the petitions common facts are involved and similar F.I.R. and cognizance have been challenged hence, both the petitions are being heard together with the consent of the parties. 5. In Cr.M.P. No. 1497 of 2016 prayer has been made for quashing of F.I.R. arising out of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 as well as entire criminal proceeding and in Cr.M.P. 2162 of 2016 prayer has been made for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including cognizance order dated 06.08.2016 passed in Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 pending in the court concerned. 6. The F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that for the last 20 years, the informant is engaged in work of soil dwelling and loading of soil and since 2007 he was working with M/s Megotia Construction Private Limited at the rate of Rupees 65 Cubic Meter and Railway Work at the rate of 100 Cubic Meter. Since in the year, 2002 the informant worked at Dalbhumgarh Canal No. 47 and 48 and Sunder Nagar Canal No. 17 and 29 and Railway third line at Adityapur and the cost incurred was to the tune of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. Since in the year, 2002 the informant worked at Dalbhumgarh Canal No. 47 and 48 and Sunder Nagar Canal No. 17 and 29 and Railway third line at Adityapur and the cost incurred was to the tune of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. It is alleged that in the year, 2012 for work of soil loading and levelling in the company of the petitioners only the vehicles were used and the rest of the expenses such as oil and tyre were borne by petitioners and when the informant demanded money against the work done by him they had assured to pay it but for last one year whenever the informant demanded his money they used to abuse him and threatened him of dire consequences and also retained his Hywa Trucks bearing Registration No. HR 67A 3639, HR 67A 3684 and JCB bearing Registration No. HR 67 A 2651 for last 14-15 months and whenever he demanded his money and vehicles they used to abuse him and also threatened to kill. The installment of vehicles are not being deposited in Bank. On the basis of these allegations, the instant case has been lodged. 7. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits the petitioners are working as contractors and they have been awarded certain works by the Railways and subsequently, the petitioners have taken work from the informant to execute tender in question. He further submits that the allegations are for recovery of Rs. 1,39,51,194/- and further allegation is that two Hywa vehicle and one J.C.B. of the informant have been kept by these petitioners. He further submits that by writing letter dated 28.11.2014 and 18.03.2015 the petitioners have informed the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Jadugora police station, East Singhbhum about the intentionally parking the said Hywa vehicles and J.C.B. by the informant in the premises of the petitioners. It has also mentioned therein that informant is not coming to take the said vehicles and the said vehicles are lying there. He further submits that recovery of amount in question, legal notice has been exchanged between the parties by way of Annexure-5 and 6 of Cr.M.P. No. 1497 of 2016. He further submits that in first legal notice only a sum of Rs. 86,06,457/- was claimed by the informant however, in subsequent legal notice informant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. He further submits that in first legal notice only a sum of Rs. 86,06,457/- was claimed by the informant however, in subsequent legal notice informant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,39,51,194/-. He further submits that for recovery of said amount informant has moved before the Assistant Commissioner, Labour Court at Panipat and as the informant has not appeared before the concerned authority the said complaint was disposed of directing the informant to file petition before the competent authority by order dated 09.11.2015. He further submits that for civil wrong, criminal case has been put on motion by the informant. He relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand” reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 wherein para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 8. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court is competent to quash the F.I.R. including entire criminal proceeding and order taking cognizance and this petition is fit to be allowed. 9. Per contra, Mrs Priya Shrestha, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State in Cr.M.P. No.1497/2016 submits that only F.I.R. is under challenge and there are allegations against the petitioners, the Court may not quash the F.I.R. 10. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State in Cr.M.P. No. 2162/2016 submits that chargesheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State in Cr.M.P. No. 2162/2016 submits that chargesheet has been submitted and cognizance has been taken. He further submits that there is no illegality in cognizance order and at this stage, the Court may not exercise its power under section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that for recovery of amount of Rs. Rs. 1,39,51,194/-, F.I.R. has been lodged. Further allegation is that two Hywa vehicles and one J.C.B have been illegally kept by the petitioners. Prima facie, it appears that for recovery of amount occurrence is of the year, 2012 whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on 08.10.2015. The informant has approached the Assistant Commissioner, Labour Court, Panipat for recovery of amount in question but the informant has not appeared before the said Court and the case was disposed of directing the informant to move before the competent authority inspite of that informant has not moved before the competent authority for recovery of amount and has chosen to file this case. It appears that informant has lost interest in this case as on 05.05.2022 Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel informed the Court that the opposite party no. 2 has taken the file from him two years back and he has no instruction to argue the case and it was observed by the Court that O.P. No. 2 is required to make alternative arrangement to pursue the case on his behalf and with a view to provide one more opportunity to the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned. Inspite of that informant has not appeared before the Court. Contents of the F.I.R. suggests that matter is civil in nature. Inspite of direction by the Labour Court to appear the informant before the competent authority, informant has not appeared and maliciously lodged this case. 12. The Court has perused the order dated 06.08.2016 by which the learned court has taken cognizance. It is well settled that for taking cognizance a detailed order is not required to be passed however, what are the prima facie materials against the petitioner, is required to be disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in the case in hand. 13. It is well settled that for taking cognizance a detailed order is not required to be passed however, what are the prima facie materials against the petitioner, is required to be disclosed in the cognizance order, which is lacking in the case in hand. 13. In view of the above facts and the reasons and analysis, entire criminal proceeding as well as F.I.R. arising out of Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 including cognizance order dated 06.08.2016 passed in Jugsalai P.S. Case No. 320/2015, corresponding to G.R. No. 3341 of 2015 pending in the court concerned, are hereby quashed. 14. Both the petitions stand disposed of. Pending I.A., if any stands, disposed of. Interim order is vacated.