IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.57094 of 2007 BINOD CHANDRA JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3 11.01.2010. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint case being CR No. 448 of 1996 dated 1.8.1996, filed by opposite party no.2, including order dated 14.8.1996, by which cognizance of offence under sections 420,406 & 506 of the of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner. Opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur alleging that he took a tractor with trolley from the petitioner on hire basis with effect from 23.3.1996 under unregistered agreement, as per which he was to pay a sum of Rs. 3,500/- per month, apart from upkeep of the tractor and trolley. He further alleged that the petitioner breached condition of agreement and took away the tractor and trailer from him on 24.5.1996/28.5.1996 on the pretext that he will return the same, which he did not do. The complainant further alleged that petitioner took a sum of Rs.5000/- on 5.6.1996 as advance for purchasing the tyre of the tractor. The complainant wrote several letters to the petitioner and met several times to return the tractor as per agreement but he refused to do so. The complainant as such alleged that the petitioner cheated him of a sum of Rs.11,750/-. The petitioner states that earlier he filed an application for - 2 - discharge before the trial court which was rejected. Thereafter he moved a revision before the Sessions court, Madhubani which got dismissed for default on 12.3.2007. The petitioner has now filed an application for quashing entire prosecution including order dated 14.8.1996, whereby cognizance of offence under sections 420,406 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. The petitioner states that from perusal of the prosecution case at the maximum civil dispute could be made out. The petitioner took back his tractor as the complainant failed to pay the monthly hire charges. The impugned prayer of quashing of cognizance and criminal prosecution cannot be granted for two reasons. Once a party has moved this Court against a subsequent order passed at a subsequent stage, he cannot be allowed to challenge order passed at an earlier stage, which he could have challenged, unless the issue is one of jurisdiction, which is not the case here. Further the prayer to quash the entire prosecution case after 11 years, where the case is at the stage of evidence is belated one and fit to be rejected on this ground also. Once the discharge petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected on 13.1.2005 and the consequent revision got dismissed for default on 2.3.2007, it would be too late for the petitioner to challenge order taking cognizance including quashing of proceeding. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. As the case is of year 1996, the trial court is directed to conclude trial within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of - 3 - this order. The instant petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).