JUDGMENT : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. 1. The brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition and criminal revision petition are as below:- Mr. Yogendra Kumar, respondent in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1220/2018 and petitioner in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 642/2018, submitted a complaint in the Court of the CJM, Churu on 22.10.2011 alleging inter alia that he was proprietor of M/S. Shri Shyam Trading Company, Churu, and used to trade in cold drinks and general items. A person named Narendra Kumar Sharma claiming to be the authorized representative of the accused Jafar Sheikh (petitioner in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1220/2018) and (respondent No. 2 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 642/2018), approached the complainant on 09.03.2011 and appointed him as super-stockist for the products of a firm named Pinch Bottling. A sum of Rs. 3,02,284/- was received by Shri Narendra Kumar from the complainant through cash, draft, cheque and RTGS. In addition thereto, a sum of Rs. 6,70,000/- was obtained for supply of material. Thereafter the complainant requested the accused to supply the goods, but to no avail. The supply was not made. The complainant requested the accused to return the amounts, cheques, C-Forms, Road forms etc. to him, but they bluntly refused. The said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station Churu for investigation, where FIR No. 332/2011 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and investigation was commenced. A charge-sheet came to be filed against the petitioner Jafar Sheikh for the above offences. 2. By order dated 21.03.2017, the trial court directed framing of charge against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The petitioner Jafar Sheikh challenged the said order by filing a revision, which came to be partly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 30.01.2018, whereby the charge for the offence punishable under Section 420 was quashed. However, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC was affirmed. The petitioner Jafar Sheikh has approached this court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1220/2018 for assailing the orders of the courts below to challenge the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. However, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC was affirmed. The petitioner Jafar Sheikh has approached this court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1220/2018 for assailing the orders of the courts below to challenge the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC. The complainant Yogendra Kumar has approached this court for assailing the order of the revisional court to the extent the accused petitioner Jafar Sheikh was discharged from the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. 3. Mr. S.K. Poonia, learned counsel representing the accused petitioner Jafer Sheikh, urged that even as per the admitted case of the complainant, the transactions took place between him and Narendra Kumar Sharma, who was not charge-sheeted in the matter. There was no contact between the petitioner Jafer Sheikh and the complainant. During the course of investigation, ample evidence was presented to the Investigating officer that significant quantity of material was sent to the complainant by the firm Mst. Pinch Bottling Co. He, thus, urged that even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted to be true on the face of the record, the case has overtones of a civil dispute plain and simple and hence, the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law and amount to an abuse of process of court. Thus, the same deserve to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant Yogendra Kumar drew the court's attention to the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by this court while deciding the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner Jafar Sheikh, wherein the petitioner's counsel conceded that the accused was ready to return the remaining amount to the complainant. He urged that not only did the accused petitioner indulge in cheating the complainant, but thereafter he procured the bail order with a false promise that the amount of the complainant would be returned. He, thus, urged that the order passed by the revisional court to the extent that the accused was discharged from the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC deserves to be reversed and the miscellaneous petition should be dismissed to the extent the charge for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC has been framed against the accused Jafar Sheikh. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. On a perusal of the original record, it becomes clear that there was no privity of contract between the petitioner and the complainant. As a matter of fact, on a perusal of the entire record, this court is unable to find any document or other evidence, which can be considered establishing the link of the petitioner with the firm named Pinch Bottling Co. As per the documents of banking transactions available on record, the amounts were transferred by the complainant at different points of time into the accounts of Pinch Bottling Co., Narendra Sharma and his wife Smt. Seema Sharma. Even in the complaint, the allegation of the complainant regarding payment of cash is qua Narendra Sharma and his wife. Despite all efforts, the Investigating officer could not locate the person named Narendra Sharma with whom the complainant made all the transactions. It is an admitted position that significant bulk of goods was sent by M/s. Pinch Bottling Co. to the complainant, who presented photographs thereof in the revision before the Sessions Court alleging that the goods were damaged. If at all the goods had been received in a damaged condition, the complainant would have to avail civil remedy for seeking indemnification of the damages. A list of banking transactions was presented by the complainant, which forms part of the record. As per this list, some amounts have been transferred into the account of Pinch Bottling Co., Jalgaon, whereas the other transactions, be it bank transactions or in cash, were made in favour of Narendra Kumar Sharma and Seema Sharma. 7. In view of the above situation, it is apparent that the petitioner Jafer Sheikh neither induced the complainant to enter into any kind of business transaction nor any entrustment was ever made by the complainant to the petitioner Jafer Sheikh. Thus, allowing continuance of the proceedings against the petitioner in the criminal case would be nothing short of a gross abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned CJM, Churu in Criminal Case No. 141/2017 so also the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 76/2017 is quashed and set aside. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned CJM, Churu in Criminal Case No. 141/2017 so also the order dated 30.01.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Criminal Revision No. 76/2017 is quashed and set aside. All proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner in Criminal Case No. 141/2017 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu are also quashed and set aside. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1220/2018 is allowed in these terms. 9. As a consequence S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 642/2018 filed by the complainant fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit.