Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43892 of 2010 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Ray, son of Late Mannu Rai, resident of Mohalla- Mir Chaiban Chowk, P.S. Sahayak Thana, Mir Chai Bari, District-Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Balram Yadav, son of Late Kuldeep Yadav, resident of Village- Shivadih, P.S. Korha, District-Katihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER -------------------- 4 05-10-2012 Heard Sri Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Pranab Kumar learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant/Opp.Party no.2 on instruction of Sri Anant Kumar, learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Katihar P.S.Case No.142 of 2009. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence 406,420, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 initially filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, which was subsequently referred to the police under Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43892 of 2010 (4) dt.05-10-2012 2 / 6 2 Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for its registration and investigation of the case and thereafter, an F.I.R. vide Katihar Town P.S. Case No.142 of 2009 was registered for the offence under [STATUTE] . The case was investigated and after collecting the evidence corroborating the commission of alleged offences, chargesheet was submitted by the police. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order has taken cognizance of offence, as mentioned above. In sum and substance, it was alleged by the informant in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was a petty contractor and he had taken works order from the Minor Irrigation Department. Thereafter, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the informant and one another. As per agreement, the work was to be executed by the informant and one another person and they were also required to meet the expenses for total amount of Rs.42,35,508/-. As per internal agreement , the petitioner was required to make payment after receiving the payment from the Government. It was alleged that after completion of 70 % works, certain payments were made through cheque, which was received by the petitioner, but fraudulently only some amount was paid and some amount was not paid to the informant. It was alleged that in a calculated manner, the petitioner had persuaded the informant Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43892 of 2010 (4) dt.05-10-2012 3 / 6 3 for executing the work and after receipt of payment from the government, money was not paid to the informant. It has also been disclosed that when the informant started demanding money, the petitioner with hired criminals had committed another offences and Rs.25,000/- was forcibly taken from the informant by pointing revolver by the accused persons. During investigation, the allegation in respect of fraud as well as commission of offence under [STATUTE] was also found true and chargesheet was submitted and thereafter the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance. Sri Gopal Govind Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order, submits that once there was an agreement in between the petitioner and the informant, there was no question for initiating criminal prosecution. He submits that it was a purely civil dispute and the informant in a civil dispute has given criminal colour and criminal case was instituted. He further submits that the petitioner has already paid Rs.14 Lacs to the informant. On the second part of accusation, it was argued that the allegation of commission of offence under [STATUTE] was only an ornamental and, as such, the learned Magistrate was not required to proceed with the case. In support of his argument that Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43892 of 2010 (4) dt.05-10-2012 4 / 6 4 in a civil dispute , criminal prosecution cannot be initiated , the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Judgments reported in (i) 2009(3) PLJR 1061 ; Deepak Jain Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (ii) AIR 2006 SC 2780; M/S Indian Oil Corporation Vs. N.E.P.C. & Ors. , and (iii) AIR 2008 SC 251 : Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. He submits that time without number it has been reiterated by this Court as well as the Apex Court that in civil dispute, criminal prosecution may not be allowed to proceed. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order of cognizance. Sri Pranab Kumar, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. Sri Pranab Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant refuted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly on the point that even in a case, where there is apparently civil dispute, criminal case can be initiated if there is some ingredients to show commission of criminal offence. He submits that the material available on record shows that the informant was cheated by the petitioner. He further submits that the offence under [STATUTE] is specifically clear from perusal of the F.I.R. itself, which was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43892 of 2010 (4) dt.05-10-2012 5 / 6 5 corroborated during investigation and, as such, chargesheet has rightly been submitted. In support of his argument that ev

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.