IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.50005 of 2007 BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, Son of Late Pachkori Singh, Resident of village- Mainadhpur, Police Station-Korha,District- Katihar. ---------------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Satya Narayan Mandal, Son of Basudeo Mandal, resident of Village- Chapal, P.O. Gangeli, P.S. K.Nagar, District-Purnea ------------------------ Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : M/S Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, and Raj Kumar, Advocaes. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate. __________ O R D E R The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of K.Nagar P.S. Case no.15 of 2007 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 18.6.2007 passed therein by Sri R.Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Purnea, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406/34 I.P.C. It appears that one Satya Narain Mandal, impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2, filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, bearing no.2283 of 2006, which on being transmitted to the concerned Police Station, the instant police case came to be registered. According to the informant he happens to be a big agriculturist and had grown potato crops over a huge area. It is said that as the time for harvesting the crops arrived, accused Sanjay Kumar Singh, the son of the petitioner herein, who had purchased all his crops in the previous year of 2005 again arrived and having perused the growth of potatos in the fields of the informant as also - 2 - those of Ashok Kumar Mehta, Brahmadeo Mandal, Rajesh Kumar and Shiv Charan Mandal expressed his intention to purchase the same and on 18.1.2006, the informant and the other cultivators and Sanjay agreed to fix the purchase price of potato at Rs.365/- per quintal and on 20.1.2006 the potato of the informant and the other cultivators was carried by tractor to Katihar and a dakpatti between them was written out. It is alleged that the payment for the crops was avoided on the pretext that the money from where the accused had sold the potatos had not been received and that a lump sum would be paid on final accounting being done. It is alleged that it transpired that potatos worth Rs.80,387/- had been purchased from the informant, Rs.58958/- from Ashok Kumar Mehta, Rs.51,108/- from Brahmadeo Mandal, Rs.16,432/- from Rajesh Kumar and Rs.13,768/- from Sheo Charan Mandal and was due from the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons eventually on 20.11.2006 told the cultivators, with an intention to cheat and misappropriate their money, that they should not approach them and that the money when it became available would be sent to them. It appears that after due investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet only against the petitioner and the investigation was kept pending against the remaining others. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would be apparent from a reading of the F.I.R. that the allegations against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and no specific accusations have been levelled at him. The specific - 3 - allegations, as would appear, are against Sanjay Kumar Singh, the son of the petitioner, who is alleged to have purchased the potatos. It is categorically asserted that the petitioner does not carry out any business in potatos and has no connection with any business concerning potatos. It is also asserted that the petitioner never purchased any potato from any of the named cultivators nor was any amount due with them. It was also submitted that even if the story as propounded in the F.I.R. is believed to be true, the same would not attract criminal liability as the entire dispute revolves round a “commercial transaction” which would invite a civil dispute the remedy wherefor is available by way of a civil suit. The learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 in defending the impugned order has submitted that it is clear from the F.I.R. that all the accused had purchased the crops from the informant and the other cultivators as would be apparent from the employment of the word “Abhiyuktgan”. In this connection, it was submitted that although Sanjay Kumar Singh is specifically named as the one who had come to see the growth of crops and entered into the agreement to purchase the potato crops, the purchase in fact was done by all the accused persons including the petitioner and as there was clear intention to cheat and misappropriate the money of the cultivators, criminal liability would fall on the petitioner also. I am unable to accept the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. Although, the initial petition of complaint runs into five pages at no point has any specific allegation - 4 - been made against the petitioner. The employment of the word “Abhiyuktgan” would not make the petitioner liable unless there was any specific allegation against him which I find conspicuously missing. Except for being named in the column of accused his name is missing in the entire F.I.R. On the contrary, I would go along with the learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the instant case revolves round a “commercial transaction” which would given rise to a civil dispute and not invite criminal liability. Even the ingredients of the offences of Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. do not appear to be attracted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court, Patna Dated: the 6th February,2009 Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.