State Of Bihar v. With
Case Details
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13971 of 2004 dt.07-10-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13971 of 2004 =========================================================== T. P. Chowadhary son of Late Mr. Abani Mohan Chowdhary, resident of 6, Royd Street, Abhilasha-II, Ground floor, Klokatta-700016 Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. Umesh Kumar Singh son of Roop Narayan Singh, resident of village Madhopur, Govind, P.S. Chakiya, Dist. East Champaran, at present residing at Radhika Bhawan, Gulab Bag, Bettiah, West Champaran 3. Arvind Kumar Singh son of Sri Gangadhar Pd. Singh, resident of Sharma Market, Devan Rd., Muzaffarpur With .... .... Opposite Party/s
Legal Reasoning
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1022 of 2004 =========================================================== Tulika Sinha w/o Mr. Sanjay Sinha, 6, Royd Street, Abhilasa-II, Ground Floor, Kolkata-700016, at present 6, Royd Street, Abhilasha-II, Ground floor, Kolkata- 700016 Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. Umesh Kumar Singh son of Roop Narayan Singh, resident of village Madhopur, Govind, P.S. Chakiya, Dist. East Champaran, at present residing at Radhika Bhawan, Gulab Bag, Bettiah, West Champaran 3. Arvind Kumar Singh son of Sri Gangadhar Pd. Singh, resident of Sharma Market, Devan Rd., Muzaffarpur With .... .... Opposite Party/s Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33593 of 2003 =========================================================== Sanjay Majumdar son of Mr. Kalyan Majumdar, resident of 271/283, Bangur Avenue, Block D, Kolkata-700055 State Of Bihar Versus With .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Opposite Party/s Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14114 of 2004 =========================================================== Sandeep Kumar Banerjee son of Mr. Sushil Kumar Banerjee, resident of 6, Toyd Street, Abhilasha-II, Ground floor, Kolkata-700016 Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary 2. Umesh Kumar Singh son of Roop Narayan Singh, resident of village Madhopur, Govind, P.S. Chakiya, Dist. East Champaran, at present residing at Radhika Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13971 of 2004 dt.07-10-2013 2 Bhawan, Gulab Bag, Bettiah, West Champaran 3. Arvind Kumar Singh son of Sri Gangadhar Pd. Singh, resident of Sharma Market, Devan Rd., Muzaffarpur With .... .... Opposite Party/s Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14490 of 2004 =========================================================== Rajendra Singh Pawar, son of late Col. Canwal Singh, resident of 8, Balaji Estate, Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State of Bihar 2. Umesh Kumar Singh son of Roop Narayan Singh, resident of village Madhopur, Govind, P.S. Chakiya, Dist. East Champaran, at present residing at Radhika Bhawan, Gulab Bag, Bettiah, West Champaran 3. Arvind Kumar Singh son of Sri Gangadhar Pd. Singh, resident of Sharma Market, Devan Rd., Muzaffarpur .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In Cr.Misc. No. 13971 of 2004) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bikash Jha, Advocate Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate For Opposite Party No.1 : Mr. C. Jawahar, A.P.P. For Opposite Party No.3 : Mr. R. Narayain, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rajesh Shukla, Advocate (In Cr.Misc. No. 1022 of 2004) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. J. Upadhyay, Advocate Ms. Meena Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, A.P.P. For private Opposite Party : Mr. Paras Nath (In Cr.Misc. No. 33593 of 2003) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Ranjan-1, Advocate (In Cr.Misc. No. 14114 of 2004) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate (In Cr.Misc. No. 14490 of 2004) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vikas Kr. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar Sharma, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13971 of 2004 dt.07-10-2013 3 ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-10-2013 The Petitioners seek quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Trial No.3312 of 2003 arising out of Motihari (Town) P.S. case No.130 of 2003. The case of the Complainants is that they entered into a written agreement with NIIT limited on 12.4.1996 run by the accused persons, on the basis of which four centers were to be opened. On account of this they invested huge amount of money. As it happened later on the accused persons did not allow them to receive interest of the money which had been collected under a certain fund. Later on the accused persons kept changing the policy which was quite different from the original agreement, on account of which the Complainants suffered huge amount of financial loss. The accused persons also did not pay them the incentive that they had promised and instead refused to enter into a dialogue with them. Hence the present Complaint. It appears that the present Complaint was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. upon which Town P.S. case No.130 of 2003 was instituted on 1.6.2003. After due investigation final report was submitted in the matter on the opinion that a pure civil dispute is made out in the facts of the case. However disagreeing with the same the Magistrate took cognizance in the matter. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13971 of 2004 dt.07-10-2013 4 The Counsel for the Petitioners submits that as per the Complaint itself a bilateral agreement had been entered into between the parties with a specific clause that if at all there was any dispute the process of arbitration could be adopted. However, the Complainant at no point in time took recourse to the same and instead much later filed the present criminal Complaint without any justification. The further submission is that if at all the Complainants are aggrieved on account of the changing policy of the Company since the Complainants were also party to the same they have no reason to complain. If at all it resulted in financial loss to him no ingredient of criminal offence would be made out. Moreover the admitted position being that there was a contractual obligation between both the parties default on the part of one would not necessarily justify instituting a criminal Complaint. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Complainants submits that even accepting that the agreement was bilateral the ill intention of the accused persons was at the inception which is borne out from the facts that subsequently the policies were changed dramatically only to deprive the Complainants of their rightful dues. In such circumstances the Petitioners should be prosecuted. Having gone through the Complaint petition, I have no manner of doubt in holding that even accepting the allegations made therein Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13971 of 2004 dt.07-10-2013 5 apart from the grievance of the Complainants that financial loss had resulted on account of the changing policies there is no criminal element whatsoever. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the continuance of the proceedings would be gross abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, these applications are allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 29.9.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Trial No.3312 of 2003 arising out of Motihari (Town) P.S. case No.130 of 2003 are hereby set aside. However, even at this stage in case the Complainant is desirous of resorting to arbitration procedure he is permitted to do so and also the quashment of the present proceedings shall have no bearing on any civil claims of the Complainants. (Anjana Prakash, J) NAFR/Narendra/-