IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.4090 of 2008 1. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHARITTAR SINGH, DY. G.M., BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION,BARAUNI, P.S. BARAUNI (CHAKIA O.P.), DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI AT PRESENT POSTED AS CHIEF ENGINEER TRANSMISSION, BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VIDYUT BHAWAN, PATNA. 2. KRISHNA NANDAN SAHAY @ K.N. SAHAY, SON OF LATE SHEO NANDAN SAHAY, ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (STORE & MATERIAL PURCHASE) BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION, BARAUNI, P.S. BARAUNI(CHAKIA O.P.), DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SANJEEV KUMAR, SON OF KRISHNADEO NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MALTI, P.S. PHULWARIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. …………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- With Cr.Misc. No.4098 of 2008 KRISHNA NANDAN SAHAY, SON OF LATE SHEO NANDAN SAHAY, ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (STORE AND MATERIAL PURCHASE), BARAUNI THERMAL POWER STATION, BARAUNI, P.S. BARAUNI (CHAKIA O.P.), DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI………………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SANJEEV KUMAR, SON OF KRISHNADEO NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MALTI, P.S. PHULWARIA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. ……………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate (in both the cases). For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. (in Criminal Misc. No.4090 of 2008 and Dr. Maya Nand Jha, A.P.P. (in Criminal Misc. No. 4098 of 2008). For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Subhash Pandey, Advocate (in both the cases). ------------- O R D E R Both these cases have been taken up together since the - 2 - complainant and some of the accused in both the cases are the same and involves similar issues in respect of supply of materials to the Barauni Thermal Power Station and having been heard together they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners of Criminal Misc. No.4090 of 2008 are Sudhir Kumar Singh and Krishna Nandan Sahay who alongwith others arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.518(C) of 2005 and have prayed for the quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 3.11.2006 passed in the said complaint case by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 406 I.P.C. against all the accused including the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No.4098 of 2008 has been preferred by Krishna Nandan Sahay, one of the four accused of Complaint CaseNo.514(C) of 2005 for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom including the order dated 8.12.2006 passed therein by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 341, 323 and 406 I.P.C. against all the accused including the petitioner. The factual matrix of both the cases may be noted with relative brevity. Criminal Misc. No.4090 of 2008: One Sanjeev Kumar, the complainant , impleaded herein as - 3 - O.P. No.2, filed Complaint Case No.518(C) of 2005 on 7.4.2005 inter alia stating that he is the proprietor of a firm running in the name and design of Abhishek Enterprises which carries of business of supplying acids and chemicals in different establishments. It is alleged that on 20.5.2003, the complainant participated in a tender issued by the Barauni Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as “the BTPS”) for the supply of caustic soda flake and since his tender was accepted and he was given the orders for supplying the materials and on a request being made on 5.3.2004 by accused nos.4 and 6, Ram Phal Prasad Singh and L.N. Das respectively he supplied 60 bags of caustic soda flake to BTPS through Ramagya Sao, his labour vide Tractor No.BR-9A -8781 after purchasing it from the market. It is also alleged that all the accused persons in collusion with each other got the said 60 bags of caustic soda flake unloaded in their establishment without giving any receipt for the same and having consumed the aforesaid 60 bags of caustic soda flake in the BTPS they informed the complainant that the materials supplied by him were not pure and asked him to take back the materials supplied. The further case of the prosecution is that on 17.3.2004 the complainant sent Ramagya Sao and one Sunil Kumar for return of the supplied material but they returned empty handed. Thereafter the complainant on 2.4.2004 again requested the accused persons through letter to take back the supplied material on which they took back only 42 bags of caustic soda flake on 7.5.2004 which was not of the complainant, however, he accepted the same under protest and on - 4 - 8.5.2004 made complaint in this regard to the higher authorities with a request to hold inquiry but with no positive result. It is alleged that vide letter no.551 dated 1.9.2004 accused S.K. Singh (petitioner no.1) asked the complainant to supply returned materials, which was negativated by him vide his letter dated 30.9.2004 mentioning therein that the material supplied by him on 5.3.2004 was consumed by them without making payments and materials supplied by others was refunded to him. It is also alleged that on 4.3.2005 when the complainant approached the accused persons for payments he was asked to pay Rs.10,000/- with threatening that in case of non payment his supply of materials would be stopped. On being objected to by the complainant the accused persons started abusing him and misbehaved with the complainant and his father who was also with him. It has been alleged that all the accused persons assaulted the complainant with slap and pushed him out from the office. It has also been alleged that accused no.2 (petitioner no.2) took Rs.1250/- from his pocket, accused no.3 took his documents and accused no.4 took bag of his father from his hand in which some documents and Rs.435/- was kept. As per statement of complainant he went to inform the police but he was asked to file complaint. A request was made on behalf of complainant to punish the accused persons. Criminal Misc. No.4098 of 2008: The same Sanjeev Kumar filed Complaint Case No.574(C) of 2005 stating that vide letter no.57 dated 8.8.2003 issued by the - 5 - BTPS he was asked to supply 1500 kgs of Tri Sodium Phosphate which was accepted by him on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. It is further stated that in compliance thereof he supplied 4 bags on 15.9.2003, 4 bags on 12.11.2003 and two bags on 11.1.2004 and 10 bags on 25.2.2004 to BTPS through one Ramagya Sao which was accepted by them after verification and was kept in a hut. Later on they informed the complainant that the materials supplied by him was not upto the mark and they requested him to take back the materials supplied by him and as per the prosecution version all the accused in collusion with each other consumed the 20 bags of Tri Sodium Phosphate. The further case of prosecution is that the complainant used to write letter to the accused persons but vide letter dated 17.3.2004 he was informed by Assistant Controller Store Keeper that supplied material was consumed. Thereafter the complainant sent his bill for payment of supplied materials of 20 bags of Tri Sodium Phosphate which was neither accepted by them nor they gave any assurance for payment. It is alleged that the complainant repeatedly requested them to make payment but the accused persons were asking him to pay Rs.10,000/- per month with threatening that in case of non payment his supplied materials would be rejected in illegal manner and he would get payments and supplied materials also would not be returned to him. It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused persons have shown the supplied material for their illegal gain and have neither returned the same to him nor have made payment to him - 6 - which is against the contract also executed in between both the parties as per which payment was to be made within a month. The further case of prosecution is that on 15.4.2005 when the complainant alongwith one Nawal Kishor Thakur approached the accused persons for payments then accused nos.3 and 4 started abusing him with threatening that they would not pay his bills nor they would issue any supply order to him. It has been alleged that on being objected by the complainant the accused persons assaulted the complainant with slap and pushed him out from the office. It has been alleged that due to illegal act of the accused persons the complainant suffered loss of prestige as well as loss of Rs.11,000/-. A request was made on behalf of complainant to punish the accused persons. The impugned orders are sought to be challenged on several grounds including the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and does not invite criminal liability since the allegation is of non-payment of the price of the materials supplied to the BTPS under a contract. It is also submitted that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties and a compromise petition along with a petition for permission to compromise the case as the offences alleged are compoundable has been filed in both the cases on 16.1.2007. Copies of both the petitions aforementioned have been appended in both the cases as Annexures. Unfortunately, though the complainant has filed vakalatnama in both the cases, none was present on his behalf at the time of hearing of the cases. As such the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners remains unrebutted. - 7 - Since the parties have amicably settled their disputes and differences, both the cases are remitted back to the court below to record the compromise in both the cases after hearing the parties keeping in view the fact that all the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken are compoundable. Accordingly, both the cases are disposed of in view of the observations made above. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 7th day of August, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.