JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Pathak, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, the learned counsel appearing for the O.P.No.2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No.3926 of 2010 registered for the offence under sections 420/406 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur. The order taking cognizance dated 04.05.2011 is also under challenge in this petition. 3. The O.P.No.2 has filed the complaint case alleging therein that the complaint case filed by the O.P.No.2 wherein it has been alleged that the O.P.No.2 being engaged in business of supplying Ferro Alloys, Minerals, chemicals and carbon products to its various customers had supplied various articles on verbal order placed by the petitioner in between 28.7.2006 to 31.7.2008. It has been further alleged that the petitioner used to make part payment of the amount on the basis of bill submitted by the complainant from time to time and a sum of Rs.6,97,333.70 has remained outstanding and payable by the petitioner. It has been further alleged that O.P.No.2 requested the petitioner several times, both on telephone and in writing to make payment of the aforesaid outstanding amount but the petitioner on each occasion used to avoid payment on one pretext or the other. The O.P.No.2 has also sent registered letter dated 31.12.2009 as well as legal notice dated 16.06.2010 however, the petitioner did not pay the outstanding amount of Rs.6,97,333.70. Lastly it has been alleged by the O.P.No.2 that on receipt of the legal notice the petitioner telephonically requested him not to lodge any case and give at least four months’ time for payment of the due amount, however, even after more than six months, no payment has been made, and hence the complaint case. 4. Mr. Pathak, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is commercial transaction between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2. By way of referring Annexure-2, he submits that Rs.1,53,84,513.70 was said to be the amount due pursuant to certain supply between the parties. He submits that out of that, a sum of Rs.1,46,87,180.00 has already been paid to the O.P.No.2 and the balance amount is said to be Rs.6,97,333.70. By way of referring Annexure-2, he submits that Rs.1,53,84,513.70 was said to be the amount due pursuant to certain supply between the parties. He submits that out of that, a sum of Rs.1,46,87,180.00 has already been paid to the O.P.No.2 and the balance amount is said to be Rs.6,97,333.70. He submits that only for recovery of this amount, the complaint case has been filed. According to him, there is certain dispute with regard to that transaction which is civil in nature and for which criminal case has been filed and in that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding may kindly be quashed. 5. Mr. Sah, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 vehemently opposed the argument of Mr. Pathak, the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that criminality is made out and it is well settled the if the civil case is there, however, criminality is made out, both the proceeding can proceed simultaneously. On this ground, he submits that there is no ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 6. Mr. Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondent State submits that pursuant to the complaint case, the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that the order taking cognizance appears to be a correct one. 7. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the contents of the complaint case as well as the order taking cognizance and finds that admittedly there was business transaction between the petitioner and the O.P.No.2. Annexure-2 is the document of the O.P.No.2 which suggest that Rs.1,53,84,513.70 was demanded pursuant to certain supply to the petitioner and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.1,46,87,180/-. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.6,97,333.70 was not paid. This is not a case that from the very beginning there is intention of cheating of the O.P.No.2 and in light of definition of section 415 IPC with regard to cheating if that was not there, the contention of Mr.Sah, the learned counsel for the O.P.No.2 is not accepted by the Court and the Court comes to the conclusion that for civil nature of allegation the criminal case has been filed and further to allow the proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 8. 8. In that view of the matter, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No.3926 of 2010 registered for the offence under sections 420/406 of the IPC, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur is quashed. 9. Cr.M.P. No.45 of 2012 is allowed and disposed of. 10. It is made clear that if any civil proceeding is brought by the O.P.No.2 that will be decided on its own merit without being prejudiced of this order. 11. Pending petition if any also stands disposed of.