CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2610 OF 2003 In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ---------- 1. BABU LAL GUPTA 2. Prem Chand Gupta @ Prem Kumar Gupta, Both sons of Late Nathu Lal Gupta C/O M/S Hariyana Trading Company, Sri Ram Market, Suttapatty, Police Station-Town, District-Muzaffarpur, resident of behind New Market, Saraiyaganj, District- Muzaffarpur ------------ Petitioners. Versus 1 THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. M/S North Eastern Carrying Corporation, having its Head Office at Rambagh Road, Azad Market, New Delhi-110006 and one of its Regional and Branch at S.P.Verma Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna, through its Regional Manager Sri Jagdish Prasad Khandelwal ----------------------- Opp.Parties. ---------------- For the petitioners: S/Sri Sanjeev Ranjan, and Anjani Kumar Sharan For the State: Sri A.M.P.Mehta, A.P.P. ----------------- 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 an order dated 6.3.2000 passed by Sri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate,Patna in Complaint Case No.809C of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Short fact of the case is that a complaint petition was filed on behalf of Opp.Party no.2 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, which was numbered as Complaint Case No.809C of 1999. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that at Patna there was a 2 regional office of M/S North Eastern Carrying Corporation and it also was having a Branch at Muzaffarpur, North Bihar. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant used to take goods to its customers through transport to various destination against “Bilty” and directly in the name of consignee of its customer. Some goods were booked by M/S Bhiwani Textiles Mills, situated in Haryana and at Bombay for transporting the goods to Muzaffarpur . A partnership firm in the name of M/S. Haryana Trading Company was being run by both the petitioners. The complainant was sending goods to the accused persons through Bilty . It was alleged that on some occasion without producing Bilty M/S Haryana Trading Company got delivery of some goods from Muzaffarpur Branch of the complainant and, thereafter payment was not cleared. Accordingly the complainant alleged that the petitioners had committed offences under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Detailed allegations have been mentioned in the complaint petition. However, for the just decision of the present case, the Court felt that it is not necessary to give the detail in the present order. The complaint petition was filed on 14.6.1999. After filing of the complaint and conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate on 6.3.2000 took cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Aggrieved with the order of cognizance , the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition and on 30.4.2003 , while issuing notice , this Court had directed that in the meantime, further proceeding pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.809( C ) of 1999 shall remain stayed. 3 Despite issuance and valid service of notice, Opp.Party no.2 preferred not to appear and, as such, on 26.2.2004, the case was admitted for hearing. It was directed that in the meantime, till the disposal of this application the interim order dated 30.4.2003 shall remain continued. While admitting this Court directed for issuance of fresh notice. This time again notice was served on Opp.Party no.2 and thereafter Opp.Party no.2 appeared through his Advocate. However, at the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. The present case was heard yesterday and again today the matter was heard but none has come forward on behalf of Opp.Party no.2. 4. While challenging the order of cognizance, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that on same and similar allegation on 14.6.1999 itself, i.e. the date of filing of the present complaint at Patna, the Branch Manager of Opp.Party no.2 had filed a written information to the Officer Incharge of Town Police Station, Muzaffarpur and on the basis of said written information, an F.I.R. vide Town( Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No.182 of 1999 was registered on 14.6.1999 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, both the petitioners and another were made accused. It was submitted that after conducting investigation in the said case, Muzaffarpur Police subsequently submitted chargesheet on 22.5.2000. During the investigation involvement of the petitioner no.1 was found and also one accused after his death was forwarded as accused in the said chargesheet. However, nothing was found against petitioner no.2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that once on the same and similar allegation, the statutory Investigating Agency after 4 conducting investigation has already submitted chargesheet at Muzaffarpur allowing the prosecution in Complaint Case No.809C of 1999 before the Patna Court will amount to allowing abuse of the process of the Court and, as such, it has been prayed to quash the order of cognizance. 5. Sri A.M.P. Mehta, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State in absence of Opp.Party no.2 has opposed the prayer of the petitioners. It has been submitted that the proper course for the petitioners was to file a petition under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court at Patna with a request to keep the matter pending till the disposal of the criminal case at Muzaffarpur. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, I have also perused the materials available on record. In the present complaint, it has been stated that occurrence had taken place on different dates from 1996 to 1999 and, thereafter, the complaint was filed. I have also perused the F.I.R. of Town ( Muzaffarpur ) P.S. Case No.182 of 1999. Almost similar allegation was made in the F.I.R., as alleged in the complaint petition, i.e. in Complaint Case No.809C of 1999. Of course, the allegation in the complaint case No.809C of 1999 has been elaborately made and after the complaint lodged by the Branch Manager of Opp.Party no.2 at Muzaffarpur once F.I.R. was lodged and police after thorough investigation submitted chargesheet . The Court considers that in view of nature of allegations, there is no point to allow the prosecution of petitioners in the present complaint. The Court is of the opinion that allowing of the prosecution in Complaint Case No.809C of 1999 will 5 amount to allowing the abuse of the process of the court and, as such, for the ends of justice, particularly with a view to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, it is desirable to interfere with the order of cognizance. 7. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 6.3.2000 passed in Complaint Case No.809C of 1999 by Sri P.N.Sharma, Judicial Magistrate, Patna is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. 8. It is made clear that whatever observation has been made in the present case may not be taken into account in the criminal case, which has been initiated vide Town ( Muzaffarpur) P.S. Case No.182 of 1999 . With the above observation, the petition stands allowed. Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 7th September,2010 Nawal Kishore Singh/ N.A.F.R. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)