After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State and on going through the records, I find that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place sometimes in the year 1986-87 and the complainant-opposite party no. 2 herein continued to chose to keep silent for 15 years till the date of filing of the complaint case. As regards, the alleged reply to the notice given by the office of the General Manager that the work was done to the tune of Rs.19,919.46, the same was of the year 1996, whereas as per the information of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had already retired in the year 1993 and therefore no liability whatsoever can be fixed on the petitioner. Moreover, the complaint petition itself reveals that the dispute was with respect to non payment of the contractual amount on account of the work, which was done by the complainant and the complainant for realization of the said dues had an alternative remedy, which the complainant did not avail. It is apparent on the face of the record that no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioner as the complaint petition is devoid of any criminal offence, for which the learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance. It, thus, appears that the order dated 25.1.2002 passed by the learned C.J.M., Palamau reflects total non
