JUDGMENT : (Mitali Thakuria, J.) : Heard Mr. P. Sonawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. And also heard Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing and setting aside of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in C.R. Case No. 5768/2022 by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup Metro, Gauhati, Assam, whereby, the learned Court below took cognizance of the case against the petitioner under Sections 403/406/417/420/423/465/468/471/473/506/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that she was employed as Senior Relationship Manager in Black Short India Limited, a limited company incorporating under the companies act and presently she has been engaged in the manufacturing, marketing sale & distribution of liquor products for human consumption. The petitioner was appointed by the aforesaid company to look after the work assigned to her as per her post and responsibilities. The respondent filed a complaint against the present petitioner and others alleging inter-alia of cheating, fraud, wrongful loss, criminal breach of trust, forgery, misappropriation of property, threat etc., and also alleged that the Black Short India Limited has received an amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakhs) from the respondents against their appointment as Carrying and Forwarding Agent (C&F). It is further alleged that the respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakhs) to the Black Short India Limited but they did not do any work as promised till May, 2021. It is further alleged that the respondents informed the Black Short India Limited and its employees that he has exhausted all his resources by paying the Black Short India Limited an amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakhs) and hence, finally the respondents took the decision that they will not continue the business with the Black Short India Limited and asked the company to return an amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakh) with interest of 10% within 7(seven) to 10(ten) days. But the said company and its employee have forged the signature of the complainant and used the forged documents as genuine to obtain additional amount from the complainant. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakh) with interest of 10% within 7(seven) to 10(ten) days. But the said company and its employee have forged the signature of the complainant and used the forged documents as genuine to obtain additional amount from the complainant. The respondent has also filed a money suit before the Civil Judge Kamrup(M) which is numbered as Money Suit Case No. 92/2021 for recovery of money which is pending before the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 2. 4. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations levelled against in the complaint by the respondents are vague and does not attract any criminal liability towards the petitioner, inasmuch as the allegations levelled by the complainant are apparently, result of their imagination or perceptions. 5. The actual fact is that the respondent No. 1 requested the Black Short India Limited Company to appoint them as their Carrying & Forwarding Agent (C&F) and considering their request, the respondent No. 1 was appointed as Carrying & Forwarding Agent for the State of Assam. For the aforesaid appointment, the respondent No. 1 had to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two crore) (non-refundable) excluding confirmation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs) to the said company against the necessary permissions, registration, raw material and stock etc. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 agreed to the said terms and conditions, he started to pay the said amount in installment basis and the company accordingly started the process for obtaining necessary permissions for the State of Assam and also for purchasing stock of raw material and other manufacturing and bottling products. The agreement in this regard was also sent to the respondents by the Black Short company but the same were not returned by the respondents after affixing their signatures. 6. Thereafter, the lock down was imposed due to spread of Covid-19 and some restrictions were also imposed on travelling by the Government and for that reason the process for taking permissions, manufacturing and bottling etc., were slowed down. 7. Thereafter, the respondent sent an e-mail to the Black Short Limited that they have exhausted their sources of funds and they did not want to continue with the business and thus, they failed to pay the agreed amount within stipulated time. 7. Thereafter, the respondent sent an e-mail to the Black Short Limited that they have exhausted their sources of funds and they did not want to continue with the business and thus, they failed to pay the agreed amount within stipulated time. But till date, the company had paid a huge amount of money in the process for obtaining necessary permissions from the concerned departments/authorities and also sent money in purchasing raw materials etc. Accordingly, the company asked the respondents to give reasons for their withdrawal but the respondents did not submit any satisfactory reasons to that effect. Thereafter, as per the email dated 30.08.2021, the respondent No. 2, on behalf of the respondent No. 1 sent an email to the employee of Black Short Company asking to return back the full amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) to the respondent No. 1 i.e., M/s Pawan Putra Enterprises within 7(seven) to 10 (ten) days and the same version was repeated by the respondent No. 2 in his email dated 01.09.2021. 8. The Black Short India Limited thereafter, sent the reply through email on 01.09.2021 informing that the documents have already submitted with the Excise Department of Assam for the BL-I approval and which is supposed to be declared soon and accordingly, requested to given an authentic reason for withdrawal of the contract. After receiving the said email, the respondent No. 2 on behalf of the respondent No. 1/company sent an email dated 02.09.2022 and alleged that after depositing an amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs), he is suffering from loss and also alleged misbehavior by the management, etc. but from their statement it is seen that no offence is alleged against the petitioner and she being the employee of the Black Short India Limited utilized the same for seeking permission etc., and more so, the amount was paid by the respondent only for business purpose. Thereafter, the respondent started threatening the petitioner that if the advanced amount was not returned in 3(three) days, he will take necessary legal step. Thus, it is the respondent who violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and they threatened the employees of the Black Short India Limited with dire consequences. 9. Thereafter, the respondent started threatening the petitioner that if the advanced amount was not returned in 3(three) days, he will take necessary legal step. Thus, it is the respondent who violated the terms and conditions of the agreement and they threatened the employees of the Black Short India Limited with dire consequences. 9. All the above email conversation between the respondent No. 2/complainant clearly proves that the whole transaction between the company and the respondents were only for the business transaction for establishment of liquor business and as such, no offence has been committed by the petitioner’s company as alleged by the respondents. Moreso, there is no single whisper in regards to the present incident in the money suit filed by the respondent No. 1 rather, the respondents also created the undue pressure on the petitioner for payment or settlement of the money suit. Further, it is stated that though the respondent had claimed that they have already given an amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/- (Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) but they have not paid the said amount to the company and from the complaint itself it is seen that they are claiming an amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) and thus, they created concocted story and even changing their stand, they claimed that Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) had already paid in advance. The petitioner has already appeared before the learned Court of Civil Judge Kamrup (M) and filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC in Money Suit No. 92/2021. However, that was rejected and proceeded the case ex-parte against the present petitioner. 10. After receiving the summons from the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Gauhati, Assam in connection with the Complaint Case No. 5768/2022, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated 23.11.2022 passed in C.R. Case No. 5768/2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), whereby, the learned Court below took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections403/406/417/420/423/465/468/471/473/506/120(B) of the Indian penal Code. 11. 11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and the issue summons against the present petitioner without any basis and the case against the present petitioner do not attract the Sections under which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Court below. 12. Further it is submitted that the case is of civil in nature and the payment was made by the respondent to start the liquor business in the State of Assam and for recovery of the money they have already filed a money suit which is still pending before the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup (M).The learned Court below also did not consider the fact that the money was given only for the business transactions and more so, the petitioner has already spent a huge amount of money in the process for obtaining permission on behalf of the respondents. And thus, the cognizance taken by the learned Court below is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside and quashed. 13. No criminal liability attracts against the present petitioner, which is also apparent from bare reading of the complaint case. Further, the learned Court below did not make any preliminary enquiry before issuing summons or taking cognizance which was necessary for the Magistrate before issuing summons against the present accused/petitioner. 14. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has never visited Gauhati, Assam during the period of alleged occurrence and also did not have any oral or written interaction directly with the complainant/respondent No. 2 and thus, the charges against the present petitioner is not sustainable in the eye of law and hence, the order of taking cognizance passed by the learned Court below is liable to be set aside and quashed. 15. It is apparent that the dispute between the parties is of civil in nature for which, they have already filed a money suit claiming for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs). The complaint has been filed by the respondents only with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner just to hide their own wrong and to create pressure upon the petitioner for payment and compromise the Money Suit No. 92/2021. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs). The complaint has been filed by the respondents only with a mala fide intention to harass the petitioner just to hide their own wrong and to create pressure upon the petitioner for payment and compromise the Money Suit No. 92/2021. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a fit case wherein, the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C can be exercised for setting aside and quashing of the criminal proceeding as well as the order of cognizance passed by the learned Court below. 16. Mr. Sonowal, learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673 in the case of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand &Ors. and emphasizes on paragraph 7 of the said judgement which reads as under: “7. While exercising its jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This Power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which his essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fat, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.” 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the contents of the complaint as well as from the discussion made above, it is seen that the money was given by the respondents only for business purpose and for recovery of the said money and they have already filed a Money Suit seeking recovery of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) and in the entire facts of the case there is no criminal liability of the petitioner nor any offence have been committed by the petitioner to attract the Sections under which the learned Court below took cognizance of the same. 18. Mr. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) and in the entire facts of the case there is no criminal liability of the petitioner nor any offence have been committed by the petitioner to attract the Sections under which the learned Court below took cognizance of the same. 18. Mr. B. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents submitted in this regard that the petitioner did not fulfill the promises and however, even after receiving the money, the company did not do anything. Further, they cannot deny of receiving money from the respondent/company as all the moneys were transferred through RTGs. It is further submitted that in the month of January, 2021 one Pankaj Dutta and one Manas Kar Zonal, the Regional Sales Manager (RSM) as well as the sales Manager approached him looking for distributors and Carrying and Forwarding Agent, (C&F) for introducing their alcohol in the market.And accepting their proposal accordingly, the petitioner’s company asked for money to complete the procedural requirements for registration of authorized distributors. So, considering the proposal, the respondent paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two crore) in installments but the petitioner’s company approached the respondents and asked and requested them to take C&F instead of distributorship even after payment of huge amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two crore) and thereafter, they have also immediately produced the said agreement which was ready and notarized without the signature of any respondents and they were instructed to sign on the agreement. But on perusal of the agreement, it was found that the payment was non-refundable and when the petitioner was asked to remove the clauses from the agreement, they did not remove the said clauses and thus, as per the agreement the respondents already paid Rs. 1,02,000,00/-(Rupees One crore two lakhs) but the petitioner did not do any work as promised nor he removed the non-refundable clauses from the agreement. 19. Thereafter, the respondents informed the petitioner that he had already exhausted all his resources by paying the petitioner’s company an amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakhs) and he does not want to continue with the agreement, the respondent was informed that the financier will take loan on behalf of him for Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh) on 1% interest and he has to pay a monthly installment for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand).Thereafter, the petitioner had very cunningly shown that the respondents had deposited Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakh) on 1% interest and he has to pay a monthly installment for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand).Thereafter, the petitioner had very cunningly shown that the respondents had deposited Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty lakh) in the account of the petitioner’s company by showing some forged documents before ICICI Bank and when he received some photograph of RTGs slips from ICICI Bank he found that his signatures and seals were forged. Thus, the respondents were entangled into a conspiracy, whereby, a loan amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty lakh) was obtained in the name of the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents took a decision not to continue with the business and he asked to return back the amount of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) with the interest of 10%. But, he received an email, whereby, it was informed that the company has already processed with the deponent documents and same have been submitted to the Excise Department of Assam for BL-I approval which is supposed to be declared very soon and then the respondents came to know that without executing any agreement, obtaining proper identity prove and without obtaining signature of the deponent/respondents company, the petitioner has furnished the documents before the Excise Department. Thus, he came to know the entire fraud committed by the petitioner in connivence with the Directors, Administrators and other workmen of the petitioner’s company and then he received information from the company that he cannot discontinue their work as it will cause huge loss to the deponent/respondent, since the petitioner’s company have initiated the process and thus, he cannot violate the contract with the petitioner. 20. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that Modus Operandi of the petitioner is that they lure unsuspecting investors by forging false documents and induced them to give their money in hope of getting licenses which the petitioner never applied for and the respondent later on came to know that the same Modus Operandi has been used by the petitioners in connivence with the Black Short Company with many other persons to which, the deponent was not aware of previously. 21. Accordingly, Mr. 21. Accordingly, Mr. Choudhury submitted that this is not at all a fit case, wherein, the criminal proceedings as well as the order of cognizance can be quashed by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned Court below committed no error or mistake while taking cognizance of the case and issuing the process/summons to the petitioner. 22. Mr. Choudhury further relied on the decision of Apex Court reported vide (2023) 0 AIR SC 1987(Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Aryan Singh etc.). 23. Relying on the decision, it is submitted that at the stage of discharge or quashing of the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, Court is not required to conduct any mini trial. The charges are required to be proved during trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/Investigating Agency. In support of his submission, he also relied on the decision of this Court passed in Criminal Petition No. 02/2021 dated 11.08.2023. 24. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides, I have perused the case record the complaint filed by the respondents vis-à-vis the order passed by the learned Court below dated 23.11.2022 whereby, the cognizance was taken against the petitioner along with others and summons were issued. 25. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents and the petitioner entered into an agreement and the respondent had approached the petitioner’s company to appoint the respondent as Carrying & Forwarding Agents in the petitioner’s company and considering their request only the petitioner’s company asked to deposit Rs. 2,00,00,000/-(Rupees Two Crore) in installment basis but subsequently, the respondents tried to withdraw their claim and asked to re-fund the money which he earlier deposited to the petitioner. And, as per the stand of the petitioner, the money could not be returned to the respondent as they have already utilized a huge amount of money in the process for getting the license as well as to appoint them as a Carrying & Forwarding Agents for the company. It is also the case of the petitioner that they never received Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakh) as claimed by the respondent by filing a Money Suit for recovery of the same. It is also the case of the petitioner as the respondents had already filed a Money Suit for recovery of Rs. It is also the case of the petitioner that they never received Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakh) as claimed by the respondent by filing a Money Suit for recovery of the same. It is also the case of the petitioner as the respondents had already filed a Money Suit for recovery of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakh), they cannot file any criminal case and the entire matters relates to civil dispute but the respondent had lodged the complaint with some false and concocted allegations only to harass the petitioner and they are trying to give criminal color to Civil dispute. 26. It is also the case of the petitioner that the learned Court below without recording his satisfaction and without making any enquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C, his cognizance was taken which is not sustainable under the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 27. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent that the petitioner’s company earlier proposed to get distributorship in the State but subsequently, they offered to appoint the respondents only as Carrying & Forwarding Agents and in pursuant to agreement with the petitioner’s company, the respondents had already paid a huge amount of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-(Rupees One crore two lakh) and thereafter, another amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-(Rupees Fifty lakhs) were shown to be deposited in the account of the Black Short India Limited without even obtaining any signature of the petitioner. As per the respondent, they came to know about the entire fraudcommitted by the petitioner’s company only when it has come to the knowledge of the respondent that they also submitted some documents before the Excise authority without even obtaining the signature of the respondents and the documents were submitted by forging the signature of the respondent which is Modus Operandi of the petitioner’s company. It is the case of the respondent that he is not the only person who are cheated by the said company but there are some other persons also wherein, the petitioner’s company had already cheated them by obtaining same Modus Operandi. 28. It is a fact that a civil dispute is going on between the parties wherein, the respondents claimed for recovery of Rs. 28. It is a fact that a civil dispute is going on between the parties wherein, the respondents claimed for recovery of Rs. 1,52,00,000/-(Rupees One crore fifty-two lakhs) from the petitioner but only because of the pendency of the civil dispute between the parties, it cannot be held that the allegations of forgery and cheating are false and concocted. Moreso, from the complaint case and from the statement made in the complaint as well as from the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is seen that they produced some forged documents without obtaining the signature and proper identify of the respondents they obtained the loan from the ICICI bank in the name of the respondent and at the same time they also applied for license by producing some forged documents before the authority concerned. 29. Thus, it cannot be held that prima facie there is no case against the present petitioner to take cognizance by the learned Court below and the entire criminal charges brought against the petitioner cannot also be disbelieved only on the ground that a civil dispute is pending between the parties. The Apex Court in case of State of Haryana &Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal &Ors. reported in1992 Supp 1 SCC 335 which is held as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. 1. Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. 3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, noinvestigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 30. In the instant case, on perusal of the complaint as well as the other materials, it cannot be held that prima facie the complaint as well as the statement made by the complainant before the learned Court below do not disclose a prima facie case against the present petitioner. However, the petitioners will get several opportunities to rebut the case of the respondent as well as also get the opportunity to pray for discharge at the time of consideration of charge in the learned Court below. 31. However, the petitioners will get several opportunities to rebut the case of the respondent as well as also get the opportunity to pray for discharge at the time of consideration of charge in the learned Court below. 31. Further, from the order passed by the learned Court below, it is seen that at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Court below considered the statement made in the complaint petition as well as the statement made by the complainant/respondents under Section 200 of Cr.P.C and on being satisfied the cognizance was taken by the learned Court below vide order dated 23.11.2022 passed in C.R. Case No. 5768/2022. Accordingly, this Court do not find any reason to make any interference in the order passed by the learned Court below and thus, it is not a fit case wherein, the order of cognizance as well as the criminal proceedings can be set aside and quashed by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 32. In view of above and also considering all aspects of the case, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order of cognizance as well as the criminal proceeding pending against the present petitioner before the learned JMFC, Kamrup(M), Gauhati in C. R. Case No. 5768/2022 and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. In terms of above, this criminal petition stands disposed of.