CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.10656 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1. BINOD KUMAR. SON OF LATE JUGESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF NAWADAH, P.S. NAWADAH, DISTRICT NAWADAH. 2. VIJAYENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF LAKHISARAI, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. 3. KAMTA PRASAD SHARMA, SON OF LATE LACHHU SINGH, RESIDENT OF K.S.S. COLLEGE, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MUKESH PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SURYADEO PRASAD, ENGLISH LAUHISARAI, WARD NUMBER 3, P.S. LAKHISARAI, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :- Mr. Birendra Narain Sharma, Advocate Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 :- Mr. R.K.P. Singh, Advocate Mr. Bal Bhushan Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Manish Kishore, Advocate Mr. Amrendra Nath Vishawas, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan, J. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the Professor Incharge of K.S.S. College, Lakhisarai a constituent college of T.M. Bhagalpur University and petitioner no. 3 is the Bursurer. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have retired subsequently. The complaint is that the petitioners who were Incharge of dispersing the amount payable to the 2 Contractor-opposite party no. 2 refused to do so and kept the account pending although there was no direction from the University not to make the payment of the said amount. After the complaint was filed, the petitioners filed a writ application which was allowed. However, the order was set aside by the L.P.A. Bench holding that the petitioners’ bill had been stopped on account of bad quality of work. The L.P.A. Bench held that since it was not a statutory contract, the Court was of the view that no direction could be given for payment of money due to the petitioners. Subsequent to that, the University held an enquiry and after enquiry filed a Money Suit numbered as 2 of 2006. Prior to that the petitioners filed a suit for recovery of the amount which is numbered as Suit No. 2 of 2002. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is of a civil nature as it relates to non payment of the bill amount and that the petitioners cannot make any claim that there was any deliberate attempt on behalf of the petitioners not to make the payment. At 3 this stage, the Court cannot judge that whether the petitioners deliberately withheld the money or not as the documents on which they rely, are all issued after to the filing of the complaint petition, even the so called enquiry held is subsequent to the filing of the complaint. 3. It is submitted that no offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code would be made out against the petitioners inasmuch as it is submitted that there was no intention to convert or use the money for their own personal use rather the money was lying in the account of t he College. On behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, it is submitted that the bills have been approved and passed by the authorities, the Opposite Party No. 2 was only claiming the return of the security deposit. It is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion to stop payment without there being any proper authority from the University. 4. The submission of the petitioners and the documents on which they rely upon cannot be considered at this stage. I, therefore, find no illegality in 4 the impugned order dated 2.12.2002, passed by the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai in Complaint Case No. 196(C) of 1997. 5. This application is dismissed. Patna High Court, The 18th of February, 2011 N.A.F.R./Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)