Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31431 of 2010 (6) dt.20-10-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.31431 of 2010 ====================================================== Rakesh Agrawal, S/O-Shri R. N. Agrawal, resident of 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700 001 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, S/O-Shri Shesh Nath Prasad Kushwaha, resident of 6-A, Kanhaiya, P.S.-Inerwa, District-West Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Chaturvedi For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 6 01-11-2012 This quashing petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, Rakesh Agrawal for quashing the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by Sri Umesh Mani Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, West Champaran, Bettiah in Complaint Case No. 2218 C of 2009 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] ordered to issue summons against the petitioner and other accused for facing trial in the above stated case. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Ashok Kumar Kushwaha filed above stated complaint case bearing Complaint Case No. 2218 C of 2009 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31431 of 2010 (6) dt.20-10-2012 2 Bettiah, West Champaran against the petitioner and two others alleging therein, inter alia, that petitioner and other accused deals in the business of financing of motor vehicle having their head office led by the petitioner and branch office at Patna led by other accused. The Opposite Party No. 2 got a Sumo Victa Jeep financed by the company of petitioner and other accused for a sum of rupees 4, 67, 673/- to be repaid in thirty five installments and Opposite Party No. 2 had to pay first installment of Rs. 13, 773/- on 19.11.2006 and the date of last installment was on 19.09.2009. The Opposite Party No. 2 was regularly paying installments but on 25.02.2008, the representatives of the petitioner forcibly took away the aforesaid jeep from the door of Opposite Party No. 2 though the Opposite Party No. 2 had already deposited his installment on 20.02.2008. The Opposite Party No. 2 contacted the petitioner who expressed his regret and returned the jeep to Opposite Party No. 2 but Opposite Party No. 2 noticed that his jeep was damaged resulting in loss of rupees eighty thousand. The Opposite Party No. 2 again made complaint to petitioner and other accused upon which they assured that they will compensate the Opposite Party No. 2 at the time of payment of last installment. The Opposite Party No. 2 continued to make deposits till September, 2008 but due to failure of deposit of installment, the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31431 of 2010 (6) dt.20-10-2012 3 representatives of petitioner contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 on 15.06.2009 and realized Rs. 26, 700/- as the amount of two installments and also realized Rs. 5, 300/- as their expenses and also issued Kaccha Raseed assuring that they will get the receipt issued from the branch office. Furthermore, it is alleged that Opposite Party No. 2 contacted the petitioner and other accused on telephone for issuance of receipt of Rs. 26, 700/- but in spite of his frequent persuasions, petitioner and other accused refused to issue receipt in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2 and after that he lodged Inarwa P.S. Case No. 18 of 2009 for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] against Anand Kumar Singh and two others. Furthermore, it is alleged that seeing the conduct of petitioner and other accused, Opposite Party No. 2 enquired about the manner in which the account could be finally settled by way of one time payment and then petitioner and other accused assured the Opposite Party No. 2 that if final payments are made by 15.06.2009, the payment of two installments made earlier and additional Rs. 5, 300/- would be adjusted and damage caused to the vehicle would be settled and furthermore, the Opposite Party No. 2 was asked to deposit rupees 2.5 lacs in pursuance of the aforesaid assurance. The Opposite Party No. 2 deposited rupees 2.5 lacs in presence of petitioner and Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31431 of 2010 (6) dt.20-10-2012 4 other accused but in spite of that petitioner and other accused did not deliver the no dues certificate and also kept the key of above stated vehicle and after that Opposite Party No. 2 filed the aforesaid complaint case. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences transferred the record to the court of Sri Umesh Mani Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bettiah, West Champaran under Section 192 (2) of the Cr.P.C. for conducting the enquiry and trial. The learned Judicial Magistrate conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and having found prima facie case passed the impugned order on 26.11.2009 in the manner as stated above. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2 who appeared before this Court through his counsel. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no case either under [STATUTE] is made out. It is further contended by him that even if the contents of complaint petition assumed to be true, then also, the present case is of civil nature as there was only allegation of breach of contract. It is further contended by him that there was specific clause for arbitration in the agreement executed between company and Opposite Party No. 2 and, therefore, if any term of Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31431 of 2010 (6) dt.20-10-2012 5 agreement has been broken, the Opposite Party No. 2 may refer the aforesaid breach of ag

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.