JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. for the State and Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1535 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 2288 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih. 3. The complaint case was lodged alleging there:- The complainant is the employee of the company namely Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd. and has been authorized by the company to see the legal matters of the company. The accused who is owner of Austin Distributors has come to the company of the complainant on 22.10.2007 and said that he was the dealer of Mitshubishi Company and further said that the said company (Mitshubishi) was providing special discount to their consumer on the purchase of vehicle. The two vehicles namely PAJERO and CIDIA are available and in PAJERO Rs.70,000/- and in CIDIA Rs.35,000/- discount would be given. Believing upon the proposal and words given by the accused, the complainant's company purchased one PAJERO and one CIDIA on 26.11.2007. The accused at the time of dealing the sale of vehicle had said that if you got the vehicle in that case the payment would be made on the basis of invoice rate and the discounted amount would be given to you later on. It is further submitted that both the vehicles of the complainant's company was got financed by HDFC Bank, Dhanbad and as per the invoice, the rate given by the accused. The HDFC bank paid an amount of Rs. 18,18,000/- and Rs. 8,30,000/- towards PAJERO and CIDIA. When the discounted amount has not been returned by the accused and every time for some reason they started to take time. It is further alleged that the complainant's company also made correspondence to the accused in regard to this matter and after that the accused has refused from his promise to return the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/- towards the discount. In spite of returning money, the accused has also said that Rs.9,000/- and Rs. It is further alleged that the complainant's company also made correspondence to the accused in regard to this matter and after that the accused has refused from his promise to return the amount to the tune of Rs. 1,05,000/- towards the discount. In spite of returning money, the accused has also said that Rs.9,000/- and Rs. 6,100/- would be adjusted towards the temporary registration of PAJERO and CIDIA respectively whereas as per the complainant, for this the accused person has issued receipt of Ra. 535/- for each vehicle. The accused on the basis of false promise has taken Rs. 27,11,000/- from the complainant's company and did not return Rs.1,05,000/- which he was owning towards the complainant's company. It is further stated that the accused by making false promise has cheated the complainant company and got the money of the complainant's company by defalcation. Time and again the accused persons took time from the complainant for returning the money and on the date of incident, the accused has clearly said that he would not given any money to the complainant. The complainant given threatening for dire consequences if they would again make demand for the discounted amount. It is further alleged that the complainant's company has come to the conclusion that the accused on the basis of wrong promise cheated the company. 4. Mr. Sameer Saurabh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire transaction is arising out of a purchase order. He submits that there are allegations of purchasing two vehicles from the petitioner and the finance was made by the HDFC Bank. He further submits that the allegations are made that a sum of Rs. 1, 05,000/- was not refunded back by this petitioner to the O.P. No. 2 after purchase of the vehicles, which is false. He submits that not a single chit of paper is there about the said undertaking. He further submits that the allegations are of the year 2007, where the complaint case was filed on 01.11.2010, in view of that Section 468 Cr.P.C. is attracted, as under Section 417 IPC, punishment is prescribed for one year and for Section 506 IPC, the punishment is described for two years. He submits that the said vehicles were sent to the service Centre of the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2 and a sum of Rs. He submits that the said vehicles were sent to the service Centre of the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2 and a sum of Rs. 46,426/- was not paid by the O.P. No. 2 and for that the petitioner has earlier filed a complaint case against the O.P. No. 2 on 15.06.2010 and thereafter the present case has been filed as a counter blast of the earlier one. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceedings may kindly be quashed. 5. The said argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is being resisted by Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 and submits that the cause of actions are shown in the complaint petition as 22.10.2007, 16.11.2007 and 31.10.2007 respectively. He submits that in view of that the complaint was filed well within time. He further submits that the petitioner has cheated the O.P. No. 2 as in view of the promise the complainant has not refunded the said amount. On these grounds, he submits that the entire criminal proceeding cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as the ingredients of cheating is made out. 6. Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the prima facie materials are there and the learned court has rightly taken the cognizance. 7. The court has gone through the contents of the complaint petition and finds that the allegations are made of purchasing two vehicles by the O.P. No.2 and the said vehicles were financed by the HDFC Bank. The allegations are there that after purchasing the vehicles, a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was required to be refunded back by the petitioner, however, there is no document available to suggest that such undertaking was there. If such purchases are being made and if a salesman is describing the price to a customer they do so in a rough chit of paper, even a rough chit of paper has not been filed along with the complaint petition. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s intention to cheat from the very beginning was not there. 8. Section 506 of the IPC is a Section, which speaks of criminal intimidation. What is the nature of intimidation made by the petitioner is not disclosed in the complaint petition itself. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner’s intention to cheat from the very beginning was not there. 8. Section 506 of the IPC is a Section, which speaks of criminal intimidation. What is the nature of intimidation made by the petitioner is not disclosed in the complaint petition itself. Further any deficiency detected post purchase opens up an avenue for the aggrieved consumer to seek relief before the consumer fora. Reference may be made to the case of Debashis Sinha Versus RNR Enterprise, reported in (2023) 3 SCC 195 . Further the petitioner has already filed a complaint against the O.P. No. 2 on 15.06.2010 for not paying a sum of Rs. 46,426/- and thereafter the present case has been filed by the O.P. No. 2 on 01.11.2010, which suggests that this is the counter-blast of earlier one. 9. On the above grounds, the case of interference is made out, even the argument of Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 with regard to Section 468 Cr.P.C. is accepted by this court. The above facts are itself sufficient to interfere with the matter. 10. As such, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 22.06.2012, by which, cognizance for the offence under Sections 417 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, in connection with C.P. Case No. 1535 of 2010 corresponding to T.R. No. 2288 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, are hereby, quashed. 11. This petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.