JUDGMENT : 1. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-1 Case No.1202/2007 including the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. “The complaint has been filed alleging that the complaint case has been filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 26.07.2007 wherein he has alleged that the complainant is authorized representative of M/s BISCO Steel Udyog Pvt. Ltd. who was in search of Crawler Mounted Crane for their work at Purulia for implementation of project. The accused are engaged in business of hiring different cranes and accused no.2 and 3 approached the Director of Complainant company for hiring 955A crawler mounted crane and thereafter an offer letter dated 08.04.2004 was issued by the accused no.2 and 3 on agreed terms and conditions between both the parties. The clause no.2 of the said offer letter no.SIEL/2004-2005 dated 08.04.2004 is as follows: Clause 2. Hiring Period of Charges Rs.8,00,000/- for minimum guarantee period of 4 months and thereafter @ Rs.2,00,000/- per month or part thereof. The clause no.7 of the said offer letter no.SIEL/2004-2005 dated 08.04.2004 is as follows: Clause 7 Payment of Hire charges a) One month’s charge i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid in advance before dismantling of the 955A, crawler mounted crane for transportation to your (complainant) site. This advance will be adjusted against last monthly bill before redelivery of the crane safe and sound condition. b) Billing will be done on monthly basis and shall be payable within 7 days from the date of submission by demand draft of bank at Kolkata, the DD charges will be paid in our account. As per the clause 7(a) of the said offer letter the complainant paid the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash which was duly acknowledged by accused no.2 and 3. And thereafter on the same date the crane was delivered to the complainant. The accused persons raised their first bill No.SEI/2004-05/WC/052 dated 13.05.2004 the period of 15.04.2004 to 14.05.2004, which was paid by the complainant through cheque no.296104 dated 26.05.2004, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- only drawn on HDFC Bank, Main branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and the accused persons duly acknowledged issuing the money receipt dated 27.05.2004 as a token of having receipt the aforesaid amount from complaint. The accused persons raised their second bill no.SIE/2004-05/WC/081 dated 07.06.2004 for the period of 15.05.2004 to 13.06.2004 which was paid by the complainant through cheque no.025799 dated 16.6.2004 amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- only drawn on HDFC bank, Main branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur and the accused persons duly acknowledged issuing the money receipt dated 17.6.2004 as a token of having receipt the aforesaid amount from complaint. The accused persons raised their third bill no.SIE/2004-05/WC/112 dated 06.07.2004 for the period of 14.06.2004 to 13.07.2004. The operator of the crane, who was the employee of the accused no.1 and 2 appointed as personnel to operate control and supervise the crane and work who left the working place without informing the complainant or any other authority of the complainant for the second half of the working period. The complainant had to suffer with loss so the complainant deducted half day charges from the third bill raised by the accused persons, i.e. amounting to Rs.3,333/- only and rest amount Rs.1,96,667/- has been paid through cheque no.025811 dated 20.07.2004 drawn on HDFC bank, Main branch, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. The accused persons raised their fourth bill no.SIE/2004-05/WC/141 dated 06.08.2004 for the period of 14.07.2004 to 12.08.2007. Although the accused should have to adjust the said bill against the about paid in advance, but he did not do so with ill intention. The complainant was need of the crane further six months because the project was not completed, so with a letter of request and because of the brake down crane was not operated for 7.5 hours, therefore, after deducting the one day rent, i.e. Rs.6667/- of the crane and the rent amount Rs.1,93,333/- only has been paid through cheque no.025828 dated 18.8.2004. The accused persons refused to exceed to the proposal of the complainant vide letter no.SIE/2004- 05/126 dated 20.08.2004, then finding no way the complainant issued an advice to the bank to stop the payment of cheque no.25828 dated 18.8.2004 and requested to accused persons to return the said cheque and adjust the last bill amount with the amount of advance. The accused persons refused to exceed to the proposal of the complainant vide letter no.SIE/2004- 05/126 dated 20.08.2004, then finding no way the complainant issued an advice to the bank to stop the payment of cheque no.25828 dated 18.8.2004 and requested to accused persons to return the said cheque and adjust the last bill amount with the amount of advance. But the accused persons instead of returning the cheque and adjusting the last bill amount with the amount of advance received vide money receipt dated 08.4.2004 issued by the accused nos.3 and 2 as a token of having received the aforesaid amount from the complainant, with an intention for wrongful gain the deposited the said cheque in the bank and got it dishonored and issued legal notice no.Am86/New/103/2004-05 dated 21.8.2004 through Mr. Anna Malhotra, advocate wherein the accused persons demanded the aforesaid amount of the cheque which was stopped payment by the complainant. The complainant in order to avoid any legal consequences issued another cheque dated 30.8.2004 drawn on HDFC Bank Main Branch Bistupur, Jamshedpur with a reply of the legal notice issued by Mr. Tapas Kumar Mitra, Advocate and requested to return cheque no.025828 dated 18.8.2004 drawn on HDFC Bank Main Branch Bistupur Jamshedpur and the amount of advance. That inspite of several demand to return the said cheque and the amount of advance the accused persons 3 and 2 intentionally and deliberately misappropriated the amount of advance for the wrongful gain and cheated the complainant with dishonest intention.” 2. Mr. J.S.Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this complaint was earlier dismissed by the learned Magistrate holding that the case is of civil nature. He submits that the complainant filed revision before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge holding that prima facie case is made out remanded the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate which has taken the cognizance by order dated 08.08.2013. He further submits that prior to this, the petitioners have filed the complaint case at Kolkata on the ground that they have wrongly restrained the crane of the petitioner in which the cognizance has been taken against the O.P.No.2 and even search for crane was also ordered and the O.P.No.2 moved before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court against the order framing charge which has been rejected by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. He submits that the learned court has been compelled to take cognizance in view of the fact that the revisional court has held prima facie case is made out and there is no independent judicial mind of the learned Judicial Magistrate by taking cognizance against the petitioner. On this ground he submits that the entire case is fit to be allowed. 3. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 submits that cheque in question was not returned and the amount with regard to rent of the crane has already been paid to the petitioner in cash. He submits that in view of not refunding the cheque there is intention of cheating and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. Mr. Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the order taking cognizance. 4. The Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that there was agreement of rent for the crane in question and the rent was fixed at Rs.2 lakh per month and the said crane was being used by the complainant. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the case is of civil in nature. The petitioner filed a complaint case against the Opposite parties in Calcutta in which cognizance has been taken and charge has been framed and the charge framing has also been tested before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court which has been dismissed. Admittedly this complaint case has been filed after lodging of the complaint case by the petitioners at Kolkata. The learned Sessions judge remanded the matter after holding that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners and he has not left any option to apply independent mind by the learned Magistrate. The revisional court is only required to consider what is the error and if any error is there, that can be rectified and coming to the finding that the cognizance is not within the domain of the revisional court. Looking to the cognizance order it transpires that since the revisional court has remanded the matter holding prima facie materials is there, the learned court has taken cognizance and admittedly the case has been filed after filing of the complaint case by the petitioners at Kolkata which suggest that this was after thought of the O.P.No.2 to file the present case. The entire allegation with regard to rent of the crane that will be subject matter of civil proceeding and for that criminal proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners. The relevant fact is that the learned court has dismissed the complaint, the learned Sessions judge after holding prima facie case is made out remanded the matter to the learned court, the learned court was having no option but of taking the cognizance, and to allow this proceeding to continue will amount to abuse of the process of law, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C-1 Case No.1202/2007 including the order taking cognizance dated 08.08.2013, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is quashed. 6. Cr.M.P. No. 2580 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of. 7. Interim order if any stands vacated. 8. I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.