IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.34802 of 2010 RAJENDRA HARSHAD PANDYA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 30-11-2010. Heard Sri Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Sri Nalini Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2 The present petition has been filed by the above named petitioner with the prayer of quashing the order dated 7.2.2004 passed in Complaint Case No.2797 of 2003, Trial No.1527 of 2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 7.2.2004. By the impugned order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna after holding an enquiry in the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint petition noted above summoned the petitioner and other accused persons named in the petition of complaint as accused to stand their trial for committing offences under Sections 386, 506, 420, 468 and 120B of the IPC. The facts are broadly not disputed. The wife of the complainant, i.e., Sarita Roy 2 was the owner of the flat bearing no.201 of Juhu Prices Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Juhu Tara Road, Mumbai-400 049 on account of the same being purchased on 27.7.1987 and she became a member of the said housing society on account of the said purchase. The flat was purchased from Mohini Bhatia who was the previous owner of the same. It is alleged that on 6.3.1991 some ante-social elements of the locality came into the above noted flat of the complainant and after putting the entire family of the complainant in fear of death forced his wife Sarita Roy to put her signatures on some blank stamped and unstamped-papers. The criminals who did the above act pointed out to the complainant that Sudhir Roy, the younger brother of the complainant, was running in heavy debts due to gambling and the flat was to be sold by them so as to paying up his debts. It was further alleged that on 28.9.1992 the other sets of some other criminals again did the same thing. It was alleged that on the basis of the signatures obtained on blank stamped and 3 unstamped papers Powers of Attorney were created and ultimately on that strength an illegal sale deed was executed showing the sale of the said flat to accused no.2 who was the Director of A.N.Properties Ltd. It was alleged that the deed of sale and transfer in favour of accused no.2 was a sham and void transaction. It is also stated in the complaint petition that the accused no.1 Nafis Ahmad Khan and other accused persons who were criminal characters of Mumbai coerced the complainant and his wife to hand over the keys of the flat. Subsequently, accused Nafis Ahmad Khan reached Patna and in league with other criminals of Patna threatened the complainant and demanded Rs.30,00,000/- as also asked him to sign some blank papers, and accordingly, the complainant out of fear signed some blank papers on 6.3.1991 upon which another Power of Attorney was notarized on 13.3.1991. It is further alleged that the wife of the complainant was also coerced to sign a few papers upon which another Power of Attorney said to be executed by the wife of the complainant, namely, Sarita Roy was 4 notarized at Patna on 29.4.1992. Those Powers of Attorney were created in favour of Md. Taufique Khan accused no.3 who appears to have sold the flat in favour of the petitioner in 1992. It is not denied by the complainant in his complaint petition that he was not in possession of the flat and some other persons were in possession of the same as may appear from the statements made in paragraph-17 and 18. It futher appears from the statements made in paragraphs19, 20 and 21 that the accused persons including the present petitioner committed theft of house hold articles, like, T.V., Refrigerator, Sofa etc and threatened him of dire consequences if he did not withdraw the petition filed by him under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act challenging the transfer in favour of the petitioner in 1992. It is not denied that in the above noted proceedings which was placed before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the present petitioner was not made a party and that the said petition was dismissed for default on 20.4.2000. It is indicated that the present petitioner had 5 purchased the flat on 25.4.2000 from accused no.2, i.e., A.N. Properties Private Ltd. It is too well known to be pointed out that if the allegations on the face of it appear patently absurd and inherently improbable the proceedings cannot be allowed to continue. It is also a known position of law that if a prosecution appears stemming from a sense of vengeance or with a sense of heaping humiliation upon the accused, then in that case also the same could not be allowed to be continued. For examining the summoning order the admitted facts or facts which are already available on record may also be considered. I have already noted down the admitted facts of the case. The patent absurdity and the inherent improbability in the case appears the fact that in spite of being coerced to sign a few papers as back as in 1991 and 1992, the complainant does not appear taking steps against the said criminal acts and was pointing the above facts in the year 2003. Those acts which have been alleged committed by the accused persons in the years 1991 and 1992 so as to creating Powers of 6 Attorney said to be executed by the complainant and his wife could really attract serious penal consequences. Independently also, they were serious acts and no reasonable person could have slept over those incidents and could not have tolerated those criminal acts. Likewise, no reasonable person could be handing over the keys of his house to any criminal element and if he could do it he could take resort to recourse prescribed under law and could never be expected to forget about it so as to recall it in the year 2003 after more than a decade. It is not denied that there was some dispute which was brought before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act vide Case No.344 of 1996 as appears admitted by the complainant in paragraph-21 of the complaint petition. It further appears from the same paragraph that a revision had also been filed before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Maharashtra which bears Revision No.461 of 2002 and those litigations were brought by the complainant. It was contended before me that having lost his case before the authority in Case No.344 7 of 1996 the complainant had filed the Revision Bearing No.461 of 2002. It was contended that the whole allegations are a hoax and do not merit being taken cognizance of. It was contended that no ransom or amount was paid nor any extortion appears committed likewise no offence appears committed under Sections 420 of the Penal Code. I have examined the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that on admitted facts as also on facts which were alleged by the complainant the allegations appear completely absurd and improbable. It appears that the complainant was acting with some purpose which was probably to settle some scores or to force the accused persons so as to corner them to a particular point. There was no real reason for the court below to summon the petitioner. The proceeding initiated on the basis of said complaint petition by order dated 7.2.2004 is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)