IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.56005 of 2007 1. SATYA NARAIN BHAGAT, SON OF LATE RADHA KRISHNA BHAGAT 2. SANJAY BHAGAT, SON OF SATYA NARAIN BHAGAT 3. SHASHI BHAGAT, SON OF SATYA NARAIN BHAGAT 4. SMT. USHA BHAGAT, WIFE OF SANJAY BHAGAT PETITOINER NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDENT OF S.P. VERMA ROAD, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, DISTRICT PATNA. 5. VIJAY KUMAR, SON OF VISHAWNATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF GOVIND ASHRAM, SOUTH SHIVPURI, DISTRICT PATNA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BAJRANG AGARWAL, SON OF LATE JHAWARMAL GOENKA, RESIDENT OF GURU GOVIND SINGH PATH, P.S. CHAWK, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT PATNA ----- OPPOSITE PARTY ----------- 4 30.3.2010 Heard the parties. The petitioners are the owners of two factories who have been made accused in the complaint case 5 of 2006. According to the complaint petition the sale of the factories was settled for an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- in favour of the complainant for which there is an agreement dated 1.11.2004 (referred to at paragraph 5 of the complaint petition). The petitioners were to get 10% profits from the sale proceeds. Out of the said Rs. 23,00,000/-, Rs. 13,00,000/- was to be paid to the State Bank of India, Maurya Lok Branch and the purchaser had also to pay the electricity bill and other liabilities of the petitioners. The complainant would be entitled to the rest amount of the sale proceeds after paying of the liabilities. The complaint case has been filed alleging that the petitioners had suppressed the fact that the loan amount of 13,00,000/- was due to the Bank, and as such the complainant was under the believe that he had to pay a sum of Rs. 2.15 lacs only. On perusal of the complaint petition as well as the 2 agreement, it appears that this complaint petition has been filed making a false allegation which would be apparent for the fact that the complainant has referred to the deed of agreement in the complaint petition which is the basis of lodging of the case. As stated earlier the agreement is clear inasmuch as it has stated that Rs. 13,00,000/- was the liability of the State Bank of India. Therefore, the question of suppression of fact does not arise in the case, and facts do not disclose any offence under Sections 386, 406, 420, 467, 468 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. I may also clarify that this Court has taken into account the agreement on the basis of the fact that the complainant himself has accepted and referred to the agreement in the complaint petition, therefore, it is a document which is accepted by the complainant. In this case although notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 on 8.2.2008, however, opposite party no. 2 has not appeared in the matter to dispute the facts. In the facts stated aforesaid, this Court finds that no offence is made out against the petitioners and as such the order taking cognizance dated 27.4.2007, passed in Chowk P.S. Case No. 4 of 2006 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 55 of 2006 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)