Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.6882 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Gopal Kumar Bhartiya son of Late Shawar Pd. Bhartiya 2. Sushil Kumar Bhartiya son of Late Shawar Pd. Bhartiya. Both resident of Mohalla-Amrapali Cinema, PS-Danapur, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. M/s Sai Entertainment through its Manager Shri Ram Mohan Jha, son of late Maheshwar Jha, resident of Mohalla-Jawahar Colony, Road No. 2, H/o Shri Madhulal Sah, Postal Park, PS-Kankarbagh, Patna-20, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Arun Kr. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 7 03-12-2012 Heard the parties. 2. In this case, petitioners who are partners were proprietor of Amrapali Cinema Hall at Gola Road, Police Station- Patna. As per the counsel of the petitioners, the said Cinema Hall has been demolished and on that site, multi storeyed building has sprung up. The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that still the partnership is running and they are still partners. These aforesaid partners are challenging the order dated 23rd October 2008 passed in Complaint Case No. 1355(C)/2008 whereby the whereunder the Judicial Magistrate, Patna has taken cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . 3. From the complaint petition it appears that Sai Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6882 of 2011 (7) dt.03-12-2012 2/7 Enterprises, registered firm of the complainant, used to purchase Hindi and Bhojpuri feature films from the respective business associates of the feature film and used to distribute the feature films for screening or exhibiting to local Cinema Halls on the basis of day to day collection, on the basis of actual screening the film in the said Cinema hall. 4. It has been alleged that accused petitioner No. 1, namely, Amrapali Cinema Hall where the film was screened supplied by the complainant whereas the accused petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. 5. On 19.8.2004 the accused Nos. 2 and 3 approached the complainant at Hari Om Commercial Complex, New Dak Bunglow Road Patna-1 office induced and prevailed upon the complainant to supply Bhojpuri film and other for the Amrapali Cinema Hall. They further induced and requested the complainant and others to distribute the film “Sasura Bada Paisa Bala” to them for screening in their Cinema Hall and agreed to the term of payment of money at ratio of 70%/30% collected at the Box Office sale and money would be paid on day to day sale basis on each and every alternative week. They further assured the complainant, if any amount remained unpaid, they would pay within a week from the last day of screening the film in the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6882 of 2011 (7) dt.03-12-2012 3/7 Cinema Hall. On the repeated request and on assurance of accused Nos. 2 and 3 and relying on their statements, the complainant distributed film “Sasura Bada Paisa Bala” to them for screening the same in the Cinema hall. 6. After receipt of the said film from the complainant, accused persons screened the said film during the period from 20th August 2004 to 28th October 2004 i.e. for 10 weeks regularly. During the said period of screening the film, the complainant tried to collect payment of its share collected at Box Office Sale from the accused persons but the accused persons evaded the payment on one pretext or other. 7. It has been alleged that the complainant as per the collection was/is entitled to amount of Rs. 1,84,543.04 (Rs. one lakh eighty four thousand five hundred forty three and paise four) as 70% share but the accused petitioners paid only Rs. 25,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 and thereafter, they refused to pay the rest amount. 8. It appears, as there was arbitration agreement between the parties, the O.P. No. 2 approached the Arbitrator for arbitration and the Arbitrator passed the award of Rs. 1,59,543.04 (Rs. one lakh fifty nine thousand five hundred forty three and paise four) along with 18% interest vide award dated 21.11.2006 along with Rs. 3,691/- as the reference fee. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6882 of 2011 (7) dt.03-12-2012 4/7 9. It has further been stated in the complaint petition that in stead of paying the said payment, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 having full knowledge of aforesaid award, they conjointly and severally with the common intention with the mala fide motive and with dishonest intention to cheat and grab the award money of the complainant and also for defeating the force of Award, demolished Amarpali Cinema Hall i.e. accused No. 1 so as to make the award unexecutable. The complainant for the aforesaid action of the accused persons filed the complaint case. 10. The court below on the basis of the complaint petition as well as on the basis of solemn affirmation took cognizance for offence under [STATUTE] . 11. The counsel for the petitioner submits that primarily it is a money dispute and, that too, arising from arbitration award and Section 36, Arbitration Act 1996 having specific provision deals with execution of the award passed by the Arbitrator. 12. He has further submitted, for execution of award, no criminal case can be filed. He has further submitted, though the premises of Amarpali Cinema Hall has been demolished but still the partnership with the petitioner No. 1 and 2 is still in existence Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6882 of 2011 (7) dt.03-12-2012 5/7 and instead of filing a criminal case, ought to have gone for execution of award in terms of the provisions of the Arbitration Act. He has further submitted that the fact mentioned in the complaint petition does not constitute a criminal offence, at best, it is a civil wro

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.