IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.39069 of 2007 1. CHANDRA KALA CHHETRI , WIFE OF SRI KISHORE BAHADUR CHHETRI 2. KISHORE BAHADUR CHHETRI, SON OF LATE K.S.CHHETRI BOTH RESIDENT OF 5TH MILE TADONG, P.O.DRAGAOM, P.S. RANIPOOL GANGTOK, EAST SIKKIM ------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. VRIDHISRE HOTELS LTD. ( A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT 8TH FLOOR, JAGAT TRADE CENTRE, BIHAR, UNDER REGISTRATION NO.03- 08231, PRESENTLY AT OLD H.C. HOTEL BUILDING, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA REPRESENTED THROUGH SRI AKHILESHWAR KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF VIDHISHREE HOTELS LIMITED. ------------- OPP.PARTIES. ----------- For the petitioners : M/S K.N.Chaubey, Sr.Advocate Nirbhay Kumar Mishra,Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : M/S D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate Rakesh Kumar, Advocate. ------------ O R D E R The two petitioners, who have been implicated as accused in Complaint Case no.538 ( C) of 2007 , have prayed for the quashing of the entire proceeding arising out of said complaint case, including the order dated 31.5.2007 , whereby the petitioners have been made accused and cognizance of offences under Sections 420,406, 120B I.P.C. has been taken and summons have been directed to be issued against them. Vridhishree Hotels Ltd , a Public Limited Company having its registered office on the 8th Floor , Jagat Trade Centre,Patna, - 2 - Bihar, through its Chairman and Managing Director has filed the aforesaid complaint case , inter alia , alleging that one Michel Roy along with Ranvir Bihari Lal met him and on his mediation the accused persons gave lands on the basis of lease for 55 years. It is alleged that accused no.1 executed the lease deed dated 24.4.1998 in favour of the complainant and the complainant was required to pay Rs.20 lacs as rent paid Rs.15 lacs as advance money. The terms and conditions agreed to between the parties were incorporated in the deed of lease. According to the Complainant the two accused did not comply with the terms and conditions of the lease deed Though the complainant always demanded and reminded to complete the construction of hotel, but allegedly he gave false assurances and some correspondences took place between the two in this regard. It is further stated in the complaint petition that Hukumdeo Narayan Yadav , Minister of State for Agriculture , Government of India also sent a letter to the Chief Minister of Sikkim Government in respect of the said agreement but the said accused persons did not comply. It is further alleged that when the complainant visited Sikkim, the accused persons always evaded and demanded money which, according to the agreement, was required to be paid only after the completion of the work. It is also alleged that on visit to Sikkim , he found that Indira Gandhi Open University was running on the said plot, whereupon the complainant demanded to hand over the said property and complete the same according to the agreement and the accused persons agreed to refund the money in the shortest possible time - 3 - along with interest. It is said that accused persons forcibly took the signature of the complainant and his wife on two blank papers and began to use it and demanded money from the complainant illegally and when he did not pay, he was assaulted. At the very initial stage, the petitioners have raised serious objection to the maintainability of the complaint case for want of jurisdiction. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that the property which is the subject matter of the dispute is situated in Sikkim and the alleged deed of lease was also executed in Sikkim. It has been submitted that it would appear from perusal of the complaint petition that the complainant visited Sikkim several times and the allegation of threat was also given at Sikkim. On the aforesaid premise, it was submitted that the main cause of action would fall within the jurisdiction of a competent court of law in the State of Sikkim, but in no case in Patna in Bihar. In this connection, it was sought to be mentioned that the complainant on 17.5.2007 had filed a photo copy of an agreement dated 4.2.1999 before the court. It was submitted that on the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the entire alleged accusation of cheating or alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. had taken place at Sikkim , the Patna Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and ought to have dismissed it . It would also appear that the entire allegation and accusations that have been heaped upon the petitioners took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Sikkim. As a matter of fact , even the date of assault and forcibly taking of signature - 4 - on the alleged blank-sheet of papers have not been disclosed . The final submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that ornamental trappings had been heaped upon a civil cause of action to give it a criminal tinge and reading between the lines it would be absolutely clear that the entire dispute was of civil nature with no criminal intent in it, and as such criminal prosecution of the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. No counter affidavit or show cause has been filed by the complainant who has been impleaded herein as Opp.Party no.2. However, the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 made effort to justify the criminal proceeding as also the order taking cognizance. It was sought to be submitted that initially though the landed property was in Sikkim ,lease was prepared at Patna and the complainant had handed over the advance money at Patna but the accused persons with intent to cheat did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the agreement which was to construct a hotel - cum- commercial centre and hand over the constructed building within the stipulated time. It was submitted that in stead of building the hotel –cum- commercial centre the complainant on visiting Sikkim found the Indira Gandhi Open University was running on the leasehold property. I have had the occasion to peruse the complaint petition as also the statements on S.A. of the complainant. It is clear therefrom that the entire dispute centers round, the deed of agreement/ lease deed and the attached acts of omission and commission amounted to a civil dispute with no inkling of criminal intent. - 5 - The Supreme Court as also this Court times without number have deprecated the present day tendency of filing criminal cases to put pressure on the other side to enter into compromise or terminate the civil litigation. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a fit case where the High Court should interfere with the abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, the impugned order taking cognizance as also the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) Patna High Court,Patna Dated : the 19th December,2008 Nawal Kishore Singh/ A.F.R.