CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1035 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ----------- Bhanwar Lal Singhi, Son of Rawatmal Singhi, resident of -7, Anantwadi, 1st Floor, R.No.9, Bhuleshwar, Mumbai-2 (Maharastra) ------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ajay Sharma, S/O Vishwanath Sharma, Proprietor M/S Jai Mata Di Fabrics Industry, resident of Mohalla-Suttapatti, Ojha Market, Police Station-Town, District-Muzaffarpur ------------------------------- Opp.Parties. -------------- For the petitioners: S/Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, Sr.Advocate Rakesh Kumar Sinha No.1, Advocate For the State: Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, A.P.P. For the Opp.Party No.2: Sri Y.N.Thakur, Advocate. --------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR Rakesh Kumar, J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 21.07.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.2414 of 2000. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur vide Complaint Case No.2414 of 2000 against the petitioner on an allegation of commission of offences under Sections 384,387,147,148,379 of the Indian 2 Penal Code. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that the complainant was doing business with the petitioner. The petitioner was running number of firms and the complainant/Opp.Party no.2 was doing business with number of firms. It was further disclosed that the petitioner was sending clothes to the complainant and the complainant-Opp.Party no.2 was making regular payment to the petitioner. It was alleged that on examining the accounts it was found that an amount of Rs.2, 08,148/- was paid to the petitioner by Opp.Party no.2, which was excess to the goods supplied by the petitioner. The complainant/Opp.Party no.2 was regularly approaching the petitioner for clearing the account, but no satisfactory reply was being given by the petitioner. It was also disclosed that on one occasion the petitioner and others had snatched wrist watch and other articles from the complainant, for which he had filed a separate complaint case. On 30.9.2000 in the night, as alleged in the complaint petition, the petitioner along with others arrived at the shop of the complainant and putting him on fear, the petitioner compelled the complainant to sign and issue number of cheques for different amount in favour of the petitioner. It was also alleged that on blank papers as well as agreement papers, signature of the complainant was got obtained. It was also alleged that the petitioner had forcibly taken Rs.5100/- from the cash box of the complainant. The complainant after the occurrence became unconscious and he remained unwell for sometime and, as such, at belated stage the complaint was filed on 23.10.2000 for an occurrence, which had taken place on 30.9.2000.After filing of the complaint petition and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate vide its order dated 21.7.2001 took cognizance of offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioner. 3 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition, which was admitted on 27.2.2004 and it was directed that in the meantime, the interim order passed on 15.4.2003 shall continue. The interim order of stay is still continuing. 4. Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while pressing the present petition, submits that the present complaint petition was filed out and out maliciously and arbitrarily. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Annexure-4 to the petition, submits that the complainant had filed a money suit vide Money Suit No.8 of 2000 in the court of the learned Sub Judge-I on 22.8.2000. In the Money Suit , the complainant, who was plaintiff had claimed recovery of Rs.2,08,148.59 from the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that falsity of the case is further proved only on perusal of a complaint, which was earlier filed by the complainant- Opp.Party no.2 vide Complaint Case No.1561 of 2000 . The said Complaint was filed on 18.7.2000, in which it was alleged that on 17.7.2000, the petitioner had forcibly taken his wrist watch as well as Rs. 400/- from the complainant. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel , Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh , that in Complaint Case No.1561 of 2000, the complainant had asserted that the petitioner was taking clothes from the complainant and Rs.5000/- had accrued as dues against the petitioner .The complainant was regularly pursuing the petitioner for making payment of Rs.5000/- . A copy of the said complaint has been brought on record vide Annexure-3 to the present petition, which is at pages 26 to 29. It was submitted that in the said complaint case, which was filed earlier, the complainant had asserted as if the petitioner was purchasing goods from the 4 complainant. However in the present complaint he has admitted that he was the person, who was purchasing clothes and other materials from the petitioner on making payment though cheques and drafts. It was submitted that two different stands taken by the complainant in two different complaint petitions are sufficient to draw an inference that the complainant is adamant to implicate the petitioner one way or the other in false cases. It is also not in dispute that the complainant and the petitioner were transacting during the business and, as such, for any accountancy whatsoever may be, the complainant cannot be allowed to invoke criminal jurisdiction of the court only with a view to prosecute the petitioner. It was further submitted that it is not probable that the petitioner, who is resident of Mumbai can come from Mumbai to commit such crime, as has been alleged by the complainant. 5. Sri Y.N.Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. I have also heard Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Addl.Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, who has supported the stand taken by the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. On the basis of two different stands taken by the complainant in two different complaint petitions, which were initiated by the complainant against the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the prosecution against the petitioner in the present complaint was not honest and fair. The Court is of the opinion that with a view to settle the score of civil dispute or dispute of accountancy, the present complaint was filed by Opp.Party no.2 and, as such, it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 5 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 21.7.2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No.2414 of 2000, Tr.No.991 of 2002 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court, Patna Dated : the 3rd September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)