DAMAYANTI NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners for quashment of FIR dtd. 4/8/2015 (Annexure-2) registered under Sec. 420 read with 34 IPC and also the chargesheet dtd. 29/9/2015 (Annexure-4) pending in the file of learned Presiding Officer, DC, OPID Act, Cuttack corresponding to C.T. Case No.35 of 2015 arising out of G.R. Case No.1325 of 2015 on the grounds inter alia that no offence much less the offence alleged is prima facie made out against them besides Sec. 6 of the OPID Act.

(2.) As per the petitioners, they are the Managing Director and Director of a company incorporated under the Companies Act by name Vasundhara Land and Developers Pvt. Ltd. are engaged in real estate business for providing plots and houses to their customers and in so far as the informant is concerned, he had entered into an agreement with them, whereby, it was decided that a house after construction would be handed over to him within two years. According to the petitioners, the informant had paid Rs.4,35,000.00 on 29/10/2011 and considering the allegation in Annexue-2, in spite of three years having elapsed, the commitment made was not honoured. The informant alleged that a sum of Rs.5,35,000.00 was paid to the petitioners but when the construction of the house was not complete in time, there was a demand by him for refund of the money and the petitioners accordingly refunded an amount of Rs.1,25,000.00 and issued cheques for the balance which were presented for encashment but all were bounced back. Thereafter, as it appears, the FIR was lodged on 4/8/2015 for which Chauliaganj P.S. Case No.159 was registered under Sec. 420 read with 34 IPC. Later to the lodging of the report, the chargesheet dtd. 29/9/2015 was submitted against the petitioners for the alleged offence along with Sec. 6 of the OPID Act. The petitioners claimed that Annexure-2 does not disclose commission of any such offence, rather, the dispute is based on a contract between them and the informant and that apart, a sum of Rs.1,25,000.00 was refunded and for the balance cheques had been issued and although they stood dishonoured under certain circumstances, such could not have been a ground to register a case receiving Annexure-2. It is also claimed that no offence under the OPID Act has been made out and therefore, filing of Annexure-4 is patently illegal. It is also alleged that the balance amount as agreed to be paid by the informant was not obliged and in any case, having regard to the fact that the dispute is entirely civil in nature, initiation of a criminal action against the petitioners is untenable in law.

(3.) Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nayak, learned counsel for the OPID State.