Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.793 of 2009 =========================================================== 1. Shri Malay Chatterji S/O Late Nut Behari Chatterji R/O House No. 4, 2nd Street, Shanti Niketan, P.S. Nanakpura, New Delhi-110021 2. Smt. Chandana Chatterji W/O Shri Malay Chatterji R/O House No. 4, 2nd Street, Shanti Niketan, P.S. Nanakpura, New Delhi-110021 3. Smt. Archana Mukherjee W/O Sri Bijon Kumar Mukherjee R/O 168/C, 2nd Floor, Block G, New Alipur, P.S. New Alipur, Kolkata-700053 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Smt. Pratibha Prasad W/O Late Ramesh Prasad Moh- Makhaniakuan, P.S. Pirbahore, Distt. Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Girish Pandey, Adv. For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Durganand Jha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, AC to GA-1. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI CAV JUDGMENT Date: 5th-04-2012 Petitioners/accused have filed instant writ with a prayer to quash order of cognizance dated 25.08.2008 passed by Sri Ramayan Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna whereby and whereunder petitioners have been summoned to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] in connection with Complaint Case No. 1848C of 2008 along with entire prosecution so launched on the basis of Complaint Case No. 1848C of 2008. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution was launched by filing a 2 Complaint Case No. 1848 of 2008 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna at the behest of O.P. No.2, Pratibha Prasad against Dr. Prasoon Kumar Banerjee (since deceased), Dr. Praveer Kumar Banerjee, Archana Mukherjee, Chandana Chatterjee, Maloy Kumar Chatterjee for an occurrence alleged to have committed on 16.11.1998 and onwards disclosing therein that husband of complainant Late Ramesh Prasad along with Vijay Prakash were builders and for that purpose they used to purchase lands from the land holders. In the aforesaid event, they came across the news that the accused persons have got substantial land at Mohalla-Shashtrinagar measuring 4.35 Acres and accordingly they contacted, negotiated and then the deal was finalized. However, during course thereof it was disclosed at the end of accused persons that land fell under Urban Ceiling Proceeding. So, it was disclosed by the accused persons that the case be looked after by them and after conclusion of the Ceiling case, the land will be transferred in their favour. In token thereof, the accused persons after receiving part payment; 10 Lacs by Dr. Prasoon Kumar Banerjee, 2.50 Lacs each by Archana Mukherjee and Chandana Chetterjee, executed deed of agreement on 16.11.1998, 23.12.1998 and 03.01.1999 respectively with regard to different area of different plot number. Complainant‘s husband contested Ceiling case along with his partner, Vijay Prakash and as, subsequently, Urban Ceiling Law was repealed 3 therefore proceeding terminated. Then thereafter the husband of complainant along with his partner made persisting request including she herself after demise of her husband to execute sale deed because of the fact that apart from Rs.15 Lacs paid at the time of execution of agreement, Rs.17.50 Lacs was paid to the accused at different occasion through the bank draft. But the accused persons through their conduct have shown carrying an intention to deceive and cheat, negotiated, received payment and finally sold away the concerned plots to third person. By such action accused persons have illegally digested Rs.32.50 Lacs. 3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate transferred the complaint petition to the court of Magistrate for holding an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. during course of which complainant was examined on S.A. Apart from examination of three witnesses on her behalf certain documents have also been furnished and then by the order impugned the learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners as a result of which petitioners became aggrieved and have filed the instant petition. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that whatever narration has been made in the complaint petition gives a clear-cut impression that it does not happen to be justifying the criminal prosecution rather attracts civil cause on account of non 4 honouring the terms of agreement even in worst case accepting the prosecution version in its entirety for an argument sake. It has further been submitted that complainant was very much apprehensive with regard to fate of the criminal prosecution and so had launched three Title Suits bearing numbers 118/2008, 119/2008, 120/2008 before the competent civil court. Then submitted that it is wrong to say that petitioners have violated any terms of contract rather it happens to be the complainant herself at fault. Also submitted that actually the complainant has become annoyed with partner Vijay Prakash who had finally negotiated with the petitioners and got the fruit. The complainant neither continued her joint effort with Vijay Prakash with whom husband of complainant had jointly negotiated with the petitioners and on account thereof, Vijay Prakash separately negotiated and got the deal finalized. After death of complainant‘s husband, her Bhainsur and son had negotiated separately and independently with the petitioners on new terms and conditions but could not be able to arrange the considerations amount within the stipulated period therefore as per terms of agreement, the negotiation became inoperative and non executable. Not only this, although the terms of agreement did not put any obligation upon petitioners to return back the amount so paid to the petitioners as an earnest money, in case there happens to be default on the part of otherside, even then 5 petitioners felt pity on account of complainant becoming a widow and so returned b

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.