JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh assisted by Mr. Somitra Baroi learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2. 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No. 281 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga. 3. Complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant is a businessman and has a shop namely, Sahu Enterprises and the petitioner is engaged in construction work and got his firm registered as M/s Mahamaya Construction. On the request of the petitioner, the complainant agreed to supply various building materials to the accused on credit on the assurance of the petitioner and whenever he will receive payment from the government, he will clear the entire dues. The complainant supplied various articles and building materials to the petitioner worth Rs. 5 lakh and when the complainant started demanding money from the accused, the accused in discharge of his legal debt issued a cheque bearing no. 711083 dated 11.08.2011 in favour of the complainant drawn on Punjab and Sindh Bank, Guru Nanak Bhawan, Metro Gali, Ratu Road, Ranchi with specific assurance that the said cheque would be honoured after December, 2011 and accordingly the aforesaid cheque was deposited for encashment in bank of India, Lohardaga on 05.01.2012 and the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank on the ground of insufficient fund and thereafter a legal notice was sent through his lawyer dated 22.02.2012 and in reply the petitioner vide letter dated 13.03.2012 informed the complainant that no amount is due against him but accepted this fact that aforesaid cheque was issued by him in lieu of Rs. 5 lakh and was in business terms with him. 4. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the cheque was for Rs. 5 lakhs and 3 lakhs already paid to the O.P. No. 2 and he was requested to return the cheque but inspite of that O.P. No. 2 presented the cheque and filed this complaint. He submits that there is no due against the petitioner. 5 lakhs and 3 lakhs already paid to the O.P. No. 2 and he was requested to return the cheque but inspite of that O.P. No. 2 presented the cheque and filed this complaint. He submits that there is no due against the petitioner. He further submits that all these facts have been replied to the notice of the O.P. No. 2 which has been suppressed in the complaint petition. He submits that this is a case in which power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised. 5. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the petitioner is a contractor and O.P. No. 2 has supplied the items and so far as amount is concerned that has been paid for another transaction and for cheque in question there is no payment that is why the cheque has been presented. 6. From perusal of impugned order dated 21.08.2017, it transpires that the learned court has dealt with the matter elaborately. So far as submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 is concerned, that is disputed question of fact which can be decided by the trial court. So far as cheque and presentation of cheque are concerned, that is not in dispute. 7. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with liberty to both the parties to move their case in the trial court. 8. The petition stands disposed of. The interim order dated 21.06.2018 is vacated.