JUDGMENT : Crl.M.A.No.8996/2013 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.C.No.2349/2013 Rejection of petitioner's application filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this petition. Vide order of 20th March, 2013, trial court while taking note of the law on the subject has rejected petitioner's application for registration of FIR by holding as under : "In the present complaint, the complainant has not specifically mentioned the documents as forged by the respondent or the payments or money siphoned off by the respondent in a complaint to the SHO, PS Govindpuri, it is alleged that number of illegal/unauthorized transfer of funds were made from the company's accused to the account of P.P. International but the amount could not be ascertained. It is alleged that respondent had taken some cheques and has misused the cheque for which a complaint u/s 138 N.I. Act was made against the complainant company. It is alleged that the respondents have made certain payment to some persons towards labour charges to which complainant company is unaware. All the documents have also been filed in the court. The identity of the respondent is known to the complainant. Evidence is also essentially within the reach of the complainant and no investigation by way of custodial interrogation is required Hence, application dismissed. " While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner had drawn attention of this Court to the interim status report of 13th April, 2012 to point that there was misappropriation but the inquiry could not be made due to upcoming MCD elections. However, there is detailed status report of 19th October, 2012 by the same police officer, which indicates that upon a proper inquiry, all the relevant documents were seen and, thereafter, it was stated that the dispute appears to be of civil nature as allegations are of breach of agreement and no cognizable offence is made out. While relying upon aforesaid status report of 19th October, 2012 petitioner's application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. Petitioner's counsel has relied upon decisions rendered in Aleque Padamsee and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 171 , Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164 , Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors. Petitioner's counsel has relied upon decisions rendered in Aleque Padamsee and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2007) 6 SCC 171 , Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC 164 , Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2008 (1) JCC 113 : JT 2007 (13) SC 466 and Skipper Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. State 2001 (59) DRJ 129 to contend that the order passed was bad in law. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the detailed status report, petitioner's complaint of 9th December, 2010 (Annexure P-3 colly) and the decisions cited, I find that in view of the nature of allegations levelled in this complaint as well as the subsequent complaints of 24th January, 2012 and 7th May, 2012, it is disclosed that there is an apprehension of the accused manipulating the bills etc. and it prima facie appears that the dispute relates to accounting for the entries and seeking explanation from the accused. However, instant case does not appear to be one which calls for registration of an FIR on the basis of complaints (Annexure P-3 colly) as petitioner can always substantiate the allegations levelled in the aforesaid complaints and police investigation is uncalled for. The aforesaid decisions relied upon by petitioner's counsel are of no avail to the case of petitioner as the allegations levelled in the complaints do not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits of case, lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial.