IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.29199 of 2001 GOVIND SHARDA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR with Cr.Misc. No.29200 of 2001 ALOK BAKSHI & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 7. 18.8.2010. Heard Sri G.P.Bimal, learned counsel appearing the petitioners in both the petitions and also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State. The two petitions arise out of Complaint Petition No.469(C)of 2001 upon which the order summoning the accused persons for committing offences under Sections 323, 379 and 427 of the IPC was passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna on 6.9.2001. It is admitted in the complaint petition itself that the complainant was being prosecuted by the firm M/S S.K.G Consolidate Ltd., Fraser Road, Patna for committing offences on different dates under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act(NIAct) as the complainant had issued a cheque to the above noted firm towards payment of an amount of Rs.5,000,00/- but that cheque bounced on account of reasons which may be available at page-24 of the present petition. The complainant alleged that he went for - 2 - settling accounts of the firm of which the present petitioner Govind Sharda was the Chairman as also with a request to withdraw the complaint petition bearing no.275(C)of 1998 as the allegations were quite false and frivolous but during that course some altercation took place and the complainant was assaulted and was also deprived of some of the properties in the manner of description as may be found at page-4 of the same. The contention is that the complaint petition, which the complainant wanted to be withdrawn, as per his allegation by the petitioner, ended in conviction of the complainant by a judgement of conviction dated 1.3.2005 which was passed by one of the Judicial Magistrates of Ist Class in Patna. It was further contended that the trade-relationship which was existing between the parties had already been wrecked on account of the bouncing of the cheque and also due to the defrauding behaviour of the complainant and as such the petitioners firm had filed a complaint as back as on 3.3.1998. As such, it is utterly improbable and absurd to believe that the - 3 - complainant shall go to the petitioners’ firm for the purpose as has been stated by him and further that the occurrence would take place in the manner as alleged by him. It was contended that the complainant is in the habit of filing frivolous petitions against many innocent persons. The firm of the petitioners had filed another complaint petition bearing no.309(c)of 1999 and that was also pending and these circumstances and facts may lead to only one conclusion that the present complaint petition was filed only to humiliate the petitioners who are the employees of the firm including also the petitioners in the other petition. The fact is admitted by the complainant Gopaljee Prasad that he was being prosecuted by the firm of the petitioners of both the present petitions in Complaint Case No.275(C)of 1998 and 309(C)of 1999. One of the complaint petitions ended in an order of conviction against the complainant and he was sentenced as appears from the judgement rendered by one of the Judicial Magistrates of Ist Class, Patna on 10th of March, 2005, a typed copy of which has been produced before me along with the certified copy for my - 4 - perusal. It also appears admitted that there was some necessity of settling accounts between the parties and as such the complainant had approached the firm of the petitioners for settling that account. As per the complainant, the firm of the petitioners were laying a false and frivolous claim of about Rs.5,000,00/- in respect of which the cheque bounced as may appear from the allegations and the connected document already referred to. The above facts indicate that the relationship between the firm and its employees on the one hand and that of the complainant on the other was so bad that it could be hardly possible for the complainant to enter inside the office on the premises of the firm and to negotiate because the prosecution of the complainant was quite in advanced stage of trial. In such a situation it appears quite absurd and improbable that the complainant shall go to negotiate the settlement or to request the withdrawal of the two complaint petitions. It appears that in order to spitting at the firm and its employees as also to file frivolous litigations so as to harassing them the complainant filed the complaint petition in - 5 - which the petitioners have been summoned. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the whole prosecution which was initiated through the impugned order in respect of Complaint Petition No.469(C) of 2001 is hereby quashed. The two petitions are allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )