Ajay Kumar Pandey v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed
Judgment
In the FIR allegation has been made that the accused persons including petitioner established Dairy under Muskan Project entered into an agreement with Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Proprietor, M/s Hulasi Diary and Food Product Pvt. Ltd. established new processing plant of Milk, producing Tond Milk, Double Tond Standard and High Fat Muskan, approached and asked farmers of area to supply milk. The petitioner is the Director of Finance. It has been alleged, the dairy started taking milk from Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7469 of 2013 (2) dt.07-08-2013 different farmers and its cooperative with effect from 12/2/2010. Under an understanding, deed of agreement was to be created but even after repeated request, the deed of agreement was not created. Farmers received the payment of the milk supplied upto August 2010 but the money of the milk for the period 1.9.2010 to
14.10.2010 including all expenditure which came to Rs. 6,76,000/- was not paid to the farmers, on demand, accused persons started giving evasive reply, when the farmers went to the dairy on 15/10/2010, the accused persons ran away from their Dairy Plant. It has further been alleged, the informant along with others went to the dairy on 10/12/2010, the accused persons abused and assaulted him. Allegation has been made that fraud has been committed on the farmers by accused persons, misappropriated their hard earned money. The court below took cognizance after submission of the charge sheet. A discharge petition was filed and the court below after considering the evidences of the witnesses which were available in the case dairy found sufficient, refused to discharge the petitioners from case. The counsel for the petitioner submits that it is basically a civil dispute, there is no element of cheating or fraud Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7469 of 2013 (2) dt.07-08-2013 committed with the farmers and wrongly the petitioner has been trapped in the case. In support of his contention he has relied on judgments reported in 2006 (3) PLJR 331, 1998 (2) PLJR 288, 1998 (3) PLJR 322, 2004 (4) PLJR 792, 2002 (1) PLJR 93,
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this petition is dismissed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 04 Jan 2013. The bench was SHIVAJI PANDEY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.