Case Facts:
Patna High Court CWJC No.8406 of 2010 (2) dt.06-08-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8406 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Krishnadeo Nath Khargaha S/O Late Ramnath Khargaha R/O Swami Vivekanand Path, P.S.Adampur, In The Town & Distt-Bhagalpur, At Present Managing Director Of 'M/S Khargaha Constructions (Pvt.) Ltd, Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar, At Patna 2. The Director General Of Police Bihar At Patna 3. The District Magistrate Bhagalpur 4. The Superintendent Of Police Bhagalpur 5. The Officer-In-Charge Ishakchak,P.S. 6. Sri Bachu Singh Meena Superintendent Of Police Bhagalpur 7. Yamuna Prasad Singh S/O Late Siyaram Singh R/O Siyaramnagar, Bhikhanpur, P.S. Ishakchak, Distt-Bhagalpur 8. Rajendra Prasad Singh S/O Late Siyaram Singh R/O Vill Tilakpur, P.S.Sultanganj, Distt-Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyaya For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 06-08-2012 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondents. The petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent nos.7 and 8 for construction of multistoried complex. The development agreement was signed on 20.3.2007 and duly registered. As per the agreement the land owners were to get 33% of the total built up area and the Developer was entitled to 67% of it including parking space. As there was some complaint Patna High Court CWJC No.8406 of 2010 (2) dt.06-08-2012 2 by the public, the first map sanctioned was cancelled and the petitioner-developer was asked to present another Map plan which was sanctioned in course of time. The parties again entered into a registered agreement in the same ratio. The case of the petitioner is that he suffered on account of loss of time as well as because of litigation. The land owner (respondent nos.7 and 8) agreed to compensate the loss as he had to get the plan sanctioned second time from the Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation by agreeing that they will take the entire 2nd floor even if the area constitutes less than 33%. The petitioner submits that after completion of construction, the land owners came in possession of entire 2nd floor. The petitioner alleges that the land owners (Respondent nos.7 and 8) became greedy and started demanding Rs.10 lacs in cash or in alternative Flat No.104 in first floor. The petitioner submits that the matter did not rest there as respondent nos.7 and 8 were having support of Respondent no.6, the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, who coerced him to sign an agreement which was disadvantageous. Further more a F.I.R. was also lodged against him bearing Ishachak P.S. Case No.42 of 2010 under [STATUTE] . The petitioner submits that perusal of the narration part of Patna High Court CWJC No.8406 of 2010 (2) dt.06-08-2012 3 the F.I.R. would show that the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur was instrumental in its institution. The petitioner submits that subsequent agreement as well as institution of case against him is unjustified. The petitioner states that Public Grievance Cell or Janta Darbar do not empower the official respondents to coerce acceptance of terms entirely disadvantageous to them. Learned State counsel submits that earlier incumbent of the office of the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur is now promoted in the rank of D.I.G. and is no more posted there. Mr. Madan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the then Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur who is made a party by name (respondent no.6) submits that in case if the court decides to consider the allegations, he may be given some time to file counter affidavit. The private respondents submit that the petitioner too has instituted two F.I.Rs against them and has also preferred an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the prosecution case instituted against him. Quashing application filed by the petitioner would take care of his second grievance regarding validity of police case. So far as assertion of the petitioner that he was coerced by Patna High Court CWJC No.8406 of 2010 (2) dt.06-08-2012 4 the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur under the garb of resolving the dispute under Janata Darbar or Public Grievance Cell, the same is being controverted by other sides. This court cannot go into such disputed question of facts. The object of holding Janta Darbar or establishing a Public Grievance Cell is to apprise the authorities with problems and grievance of public; to find out the truth; to verify the allegations and to redress them without using physical force or coercion. The petitioner may take resort to other remedy available under law. With the aforesaid observation and liberty, this writ application stands disposed of. KHAN/- (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

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.