IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51091 of 2006 1. SUMIT CHATURVEDI, SON OF SURENDRA NATH CHATURVEDI 2. LALIT CHATURVEDI, SON OF SURENDRA NATH CHATURVEDI ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF 282 NEEM GALI, MATHURA, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT MATHURA (U.P.) ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. CHOTELAL TIWARI, SON OF GHANSHAYAM TIWARI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA SARAIYA, WARD NO. 5, P.S. GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ. ----- OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Awadhesh Kumar Mishra & Mr. C.B. Upadhyay, Advocates ----------- 2 27 .6.2011 This quashing application has been filed to set aside the order dated 6.2.2002 passed in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2006 by which the Court has taken cognizance under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant Chhote Lal Tiwary filed a complaint petition in the Court of Gopalganj in which he has stated that the accused petitioners had taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for the purposes of sending the complainant to one of the Arab countries where he would be able to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. The said amount was allegedly paid at Mathura (U.P.). It is alleged that the petitioners have cheated the complainant by making a false promise that they would be able to procure a job for the complainant in order to get his passport and other documents ready have illegally taken a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him, which is not being returned to the complainant despite demands and as such the petitioners are guilty of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Surendra Nath Chaturvedi ( petitioner no. 3 who died 2 during the pendency of this quashing application ) was appointed as the Sewayat of Tekari Estate property. Subsequently Sumit Kumar Chaturvedi, Son of Surendra Nath Chaturvedi has been chosen as a Sewayat. One of the properties owned by the said trust is situated within the district of Mathura. The dispute is due to the fact that late Surendra Nath Chaturvedi and subsequently his son were appointed as Sewayats of the trust. The complainant is a resident of Gopalganj whereas the petitioners reside in the district town of Mathura. A title suit numbered as 865 of 2002 for grant of permanent injunction in respect of the property of Tekari Estate (Mandir) situated in the district of Mathura is pending before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mathura. In the case aforesaid the complainant is the Pairvikar. Learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate this fact has annexed the certified copy of the order sheet in the title injunction suit which shows that the complainant has signed in the order sheet. It appears that an injunction was granted in favour of petitioner no. 1. The opposite party had moved the High Court by filing Civil Revision which was dismissed and thereafter the order contained in Annexure-4 was passed by the Additional District Judge, VI, Mathura. Ever since the petitioners were granted the said injunction, there has been a threat to the lives of the petitioners for which they have given several petitions to the police authorities in U.P. on 16.11.2002. The second was filed before the Inspector General of Police on 3 28.11.2003 in which it has been said that this complainant had threatened to kidnap the petitioners and take them to the State of Bihar. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party in which it has been stated that the petitioners have a criminal antecedent in U.P. and that several times the petitioners have taken steps against Kanhaiya Lal Chaturvedi and his family members with whom the petitioners are on litigating grounds which would be apparent from Annexures A and B. In support of his contentions he has filed the petitions filed against the petitioners. From the facts stated above by the petitioners and the complainant it would appear that both the parties accept that they are on litigating terms and have produced documents to indicate that cases have been filed either by Kanhaiya Lal Chaturvedi who is staking his claim as a Sewayat and these petitioners. The fact that the complainant is the Pairvikar of Kanhaiya Lal Chaturvedi is not disputed anywhere in the counter affidavit or during the arguments. On the order sheets of the Court in which Kanhaiya Lal Chaturvedi is the defendant, would indicate that the complainant is the Pairvikar or has stake in the properties of the Tekari trust. All these facts which are not disputed lead this Court to believe that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that they are not involved in any manner in sending persons to Arab countries rings true. The documents annexed by the petitioners and the complainant are part of Court proceedings and, 4 therefore, this Court has no hesitation in relying on such documents. I thus, find that this case is completely untrue and has been filed in order to pressurize the petitioners to compromise the dispute with respect to Tekari Estate properties at Mathura. It is also unbelievable that a man living in Gopalganj could be hunted and contacted by a person who is a resident of Mathura, specially in the circumstances that the complainant has not even been able to show prima facie that the petitioners are running agency or are related or for some other means of knowing each other so that one could trust the other and pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the basis of the aforesaid trust. I thus, conclude that this case is unbelievable in the background as stated above. The order dated 6.2.2006, passed in Complaint Case No. 60 of 2006 is hereby quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)