JUDGMENT : 1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for quashing of FIR No.139/2016 lodged at Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC. 2. It is noticed that initially, the police has proposed to file a negative final report in the above-referred FIR, however, on an application preferred by the complainant, the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gharsana has directed the police to conduct further investigation. 3. The police has submitted a factual report, wherein it is mentioned that after thorough investigation, offence under Section 420 and 120-B IPC is made out against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from a bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it is clear that no offence punishable under Section 420 and 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the facts, which are not in dispute, are that firm i.e. Mangla Ped Store, Nai Mandi Gharsana, Distt Sri Ganganagar owned by petitioner - Anil Kumar is having a contract of supplying construction material to the Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti Gharsana, Distt Sri Ganganagar for the period running from 2010-15. Under the said contract, the firm owned by petitioner - Anil Kumar has supplied various construction materials to the above-referred Gram Panchayat. 5. The petitioner - Anil Kumar has procured bricks to supply the same to the concerned Gram Panchayat from the complainant. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that though the Gram Panchayat had made payment to the firm owned by petitioner - Anil Kumar, but he has not made payment of bricks to him. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the above facts, it is clear that dispute between the petitioner - Anil Kumar and the complainant is with regard to non-payment of the amount in lieu of supply of bricks. It is further argued that in the complaint, it has nowhere been mentioned by the complainant that the petitioner - Anil Kumar had any intention ever to deceive or cheat the complaint at any point of time. It is further argued that in the complaint, it has nowhere been mentioned by the complainant that the petitioner - Anil Kumar had any intention ever to deceive or cheat the complaint at any point of time. It is further submitted that it is a plain and simple case of non-payment of amount of bricks, which were supplied by the complainant to the firm owned by petitioner - Anil Kumar and, as such, the dispute between petitioner - Anil Kumar and the complainant-respondent No.2 is purely of civil nature. 7. So far as petitioner - Balveer Singh is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that he was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat concerned at the relevant time and he has nothing to do with the business transactions between petitioner - Anil Kumar and the complainant. It is also submitted that the Gram Panchayat after verifying supply of the construction material has made payment to the firm, who has supplied the said construction material and, therefore, role of the Gram Panchayat came to an end. It is further argued that even if it is assumed that petitioner - Anil Kumar has not made payment to the complainant in lieu of the bricks, then also, it cannot be said that petitioner - Balveer Singh was in any way involved in the commission of any crime. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, thus, prayed that the impugned FIR may be quashed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the criminal misc. petitions. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. In the impugned FIR, the complainant has alleged that petitioner - Anil Kumar, who was the owner of firm Mangla Ped Store has not made payment of the bricks, which were supplied by the complainant for the purpose of carrying out construction work of the Gram Panchayat concerned. In the complaint, it has nowhere been mentioned that petitioner - Anil Kumar had any intention from the beginning to deceive or cheat the complainant. 11. So far as petitioner - Balveer Singh is concerned, in the complaint, it has simply alleged that he along with co-accused Anil Kumar had misappropriated the amount. 12. In the complaint, it has nowhere been mentioned that petitioner - Anil Kumar had any intention from the beginning to deceive or cheat the complainant. 11. So far as petitioner - Balveer Singh is concerned, in the complaint, it has simply alleged that he along with co-accused Anil Kumar had misappropriated the amount. 12. From the case diary, it is clear that the concerned Gram Panchayat has made payment to the firm - Mangla Ped Store in lieu of supply of construction material within time. If the owner of firm Mangla Ped Store i.e. petitioner - Anil Kumar has not made payment to the complainant in lieu of supply of bricks, in my opinion, no offence under Section 420 or 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners as the dispute is in relation to business transaction and the same is purely of civil nature. 13. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the impugned FIR filed against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of court. 14. Hence, these criminal misc. petitions are allowed and the impugned FIR No.139/2016 lodged at Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC against the petitioners is hereby quashed. 15. However, the complainant is free to avail appropriate remedy available to him under the Civil Law for the purpose of recovery of money due against petitioner.