IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.18163 of 1998 1. SMT. PRABHAWATI SINGH WIFE OF SHRI MADAN SINGH 2. MADAN SINGH SON OF LATE BABU RANDHIR SINGH. BOTH RESIDENTS OF HOUSE NO.2/23, S.K.PURI, BORING ROAD, P.S.SRIKRISHNAPURI, DISTT & TOWN- PATNA …………………………………………………..PETITIONERS Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. DR. NAVJEEVAN SON OF LATE NARAYAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLY KADAMKUAN, JAGAT NARAYAN ROAD, PATNA, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTT & TOWN-PATNA ……………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ----------- For the petitioners:- Mr. Dharmendra Chaubey, Advocate Mr. Pramod Pandey, Advocate For the O.P.:- Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. Ramakant Prasad, Advocate 11. 19-Mar-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant, O.P. No.2. 2. The petitioners are wife and husband of each other respectively. Their prayer is for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 7.8.1998 in Complaint Case No. 7 (C )98 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna refused to discharge the petitioners from a case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the complainant is that he 2 entered into an agreement for tenancy with the accused persons (petitioners) and occupied the rented premises belonging to the petitioners on a monthly rental of Rs. 1800/- per month. As per the agreement, an amount of Rs.21,600/- being the security amount calculated as 12 months rental was paid to the petitioners but after the complainant vacated the premises and wanted the security money to be refunded, the accused persons did not return the said amount leading to petition of complaint. 4. The petitioners prayed for discharge on the ground that although the agreement was to the effect that the complainant-tenant shall pay Rs. 1800/- per month as rental and the security amount shall be refunded after the house was vacated, in fact, the complainant never paid the monthly rental and as a result not only the security amount got fully adjusted but further Rs. 9,000/- became dues. Anyhow, house was vacated by the complainant but after some time he made an attempt to extort the security amount and on refusal he has filed this complaint case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that at this stage defence of the petitioners 3 may not be considered but a thorough and careful reading of the complaint petition itself would show that the accused persons as landlords never committed any offence nor they had any intention to commit any offence and the allegations as made in the present case would at best amount only to a civil claim for Rs. 21,600/-, the security amount and hence this Court should quash the criminal proceeding in the interest of justice. 6. On behalf of complainant, O.P. No.2, it was submitted that the security amount has been deliberately not paid although one of the accused persons had allegedly given in writing that he would pay back the security amount. On behalf of petitioners, the allegation of issuing a written acknowledgement of the dues has been seriously disputed and it has been pointed out that whereas the receipt for Rs. 21,600/- which is admitted has been signed by the petitioner no.2, Madan Singh in English at two places, the other document said to be acknowledgment of the dues after house was vacated is in entirely different hand-writing and the signature appears in Hindi and the document is apparently questionable. It has further been submitted that such 4 acknowledgment would not change the nature of the complaint in which the allegations show only a civil claim and do not constitute any criminal offence much less the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. 7. Having considered the allegations in the complaint petition and other relevant materials, this Court is of the considered view that even if the allegations be accepted to be true that the landlord failed to refund the security amount, apparently there was no dishonest intention on the part of the landlords when they allowed the tenant to take possession of their house on monthly rental and in such a situation on the ground of obvious lack of any criminal intention at the initial stage, mere default in payment of money would only be a civil liability and will not constitute a criminal offence. 8. Hence, the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners are found to have merits. This application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioners shall stand discharged from the criminal proceedings in questions. 9. Any discussions or observations given in 5 this order shall not prejudice the case of the complainant if he desires to pursue his claim for money through a properly constituted civil suit. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)