Criminal Miscellaneous No.1063 OF 1999 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. ---- 1. VIJAY KUMAR BOHRA, SON OF LATE RAMJEE DAS BOHRA. 2. SANJAY KUMAR BOHRA, SON OF SHRI VIJAY KR. BOHRA. BOTH RESIDENT OF AT, P.O. & P.S. JHAJHA, DISTRICT JAMUI. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAMESH KUMAR KEJRIWAL, SON OF OM PRAKASH KERJIWAL, C/O M/S. OM PRAKASH PRADEEP KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SUTAPATTI, P.O., P.S., TOWN AND DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey,A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Najmul Hoda,Adv. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of order dated 28.2.1998 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.1292(C) of 1997, Tr. No.1458 of 1998. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short facts of the case is that the - 2 - complainant-opposite party no.2, who claims to be Wholesale Dealer of cloths had entrusted cloths for an amount of Rs.14,873.41 to the petitioners’ firm in the name and style of M/S Vijay Stores on 5.5.1993 with a condition that within a period of one year from the date of entrustment, the petitioners were required to return the sale proceeds or return the cloth. The complaint petition further disclosed that the payment by petitioners were made up to 11.3.1996 and till that date, a total amount of Rs.3,739.09 was paid to the complainant. However, on repeated request, rest amount was never returned. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused persons had dishonestly disposed of the cloth in question and thereafter, the complaint petition was filed vide Complaint Case No.1292(C) of 1997 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur. 3. Shri S.D. Sanjay, learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance, submits that on perusal of the complaint petition, it is evident that there were some business disputes between the parties i.e. petitioners and complainant and the complaint petition does not disclose commission of any - 3 - offence. He further, by referring to Annexure-2, submits that the receipt shows that the cloths in question were sold to the petitioners by the complainant. By referring to Annexure-2 to the petition, he submits that it cannot be considered as an entrustment of the cloth to the petitioners by the complainant or a criminal breech of trust. He has also referred to other documents, which have been annexed along with the petition and submits that even the annexures show that a Bank Draft of Rs.15,000/- was also prepared and paid in the name of complainant. Shri S.D. Sanjay, while pursuing this Court to look into the documents, which have been annexed with the present petition, has relied on a decision of Supreme Court reported in 2007(14)SCC 776 (All Kargo Movers (India) Private Limited and others Vs. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain and another). He submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has said that the court is not divested with the power to examine document even at the stage by hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Shri Najmul Hoda, who appears on behalf of opposite party no.2, has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits - 4 - that bare perusal of the complaint petition makes it clear that the petitioners have committed offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He further submits that in view of the contract, the sale proceeds or cloth was to be returned within a period of one year from the date of entrustment, but since payments were coming from the petitioners, the complainant was of the view that the terms and conditions of the agreement will be truly complied with. However, immediately after coming to know that entrusted property was illegally sold by the petitioners, the complainant filed the present complaint petition. He further submits that at this initial stage, this Court may not interfere with the order in question. He submits that presently on the basis of the materials available on record, the learned Magistrate has passed order of cognizance and if the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, there are other remedies available to the petitioners as per provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court may not interfere with the matter at this initial stage of the criminal - 5 - case. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. Shri Hoda has been supported by Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey, who appears on behalf of the State. 5. I have examined the complaint petition as well as the order of cognizance. I am of the view that complaint petition discloses commission the offence and as such there is no error in the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. So far as All Kargo Movers (India) Private Limited case (Supra) is concerned, I am of the view that by the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the old law. Of course, this Court is not divested with the power to examine documents, which are to be relied upon at the defence stage by the accused in peculiar facts and circumstances of a case, at the same time, there are some restrictions. Time without number the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that at the initial or interlocutory stage of a criminal case, the superior court should refrain from interfering. In a case reported in 1995(3) Cr. Law Journal 2935 (G.N. Hegde Vs. S. Bangarappa), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the old law had even admonished the - 6 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 7.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. superior courts from interfering in initial or interlocutory stage of criminal cases. However, application of law applies in view of the facts and circumstances of a case. In the present case, I am of the view that the complaint case has disclosed the offence committed by the accused persons and as such I do not find any ground to interfere in the present case. 6. Accordingly, the present petition stands rejected. 7. By order dated 25.8.1999, while admitting the present petition for hearing, this Court had directed that further proceedings in Complaint Case No.1292(C) of 1997, Tr. No.1458 of 1998 shall remain stayed till disposal of this application. 8. In view of rejection of this petition, interim order of stay stands automatically vacated. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court below forthwith. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)