IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45205 of 2006 MUNESHWAR PRASAD, SON OF SRI LALA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-KHEMNICHAK, P.S. GAURICHAK, DISTRICT- PATNA………………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. PARMANAND SINGH, SON OF LATE BHOLA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BANK MENS COLONY, CHITRAGUPTA NAGAR, KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH, DISTRICT-PATNA. ……………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Kinkar Kumar, Advocate. --------------- O R D E R The sole person arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No.2507(C) of 2005 has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 17.8.2006 passed therein by Sri D.M. Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby and wherunder he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner and has directed for issuance of summons to him. The complaint case in short is that the complainant, Parmanand Singh, impleaded as O.P. No.2 herein, entered into a written agreement dated 4.10.2002 with the petitioner, the owner of Subhkamna Property Dealer. It is alleged that Subhkamna Property Dealer used to purchase the land from farmers and resell them after developing and plotting the same. It was agreed upon between the - 2 - parties to share the profit half and half. The further case of the complainant is that he also gave his land consisting of 47 kathas and 13 dhoors to the petitioner, Subhkamna Property, and it is alleged that a profit of Rs.7,66,000/- was made from that piece of land. The complainant filed the complaint in the year 2005 that during the period, till December, 2003, a profit of Rs.41,89,800/- was made and he was paid only Rs.7,10,000/- and the accused refused to give further share and misappropriated the same. O.P. No.2 has filed a counter affidavit and petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the petitioner had filed a complaint case against O.P. No.2 for preparing a fabricated agreement letter and using the same in court in which cognizance has also been taken. In the facts and the circumstances and taking into account the allegations in the complaint petition and there being a counter version relating to this case that a prima facie offence is made out, it is only proper that the same be sorted out in court in course of the trial. Since there is a case and counter case, it would in the interest of justice be proper that both the complaints cases be tried by the same court. It is, therefore, directed that Complaint Case No.2894 of 2006 and Complaint Case No.2507 of 2005 be tried by the same court and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, is directed to see that both the cases are placed before the same Magistrate for analogous trial. This order be communicated to the learned District and - 3 - Sessions Judge, Pana, for necessary action. With the aforesaid observations, this application is dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 23rd of January, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.