BIKAS CHANDRA DEB Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for quashing of the F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on 2.12.2006 by one Nabin Singh as authorized representative of the opposite party No.2-Manoj Kumar Agarwal. The said F.I.R. was registered as Raghunath Palli P.S. Case No. 284 of 2006 under Section 420, IPC. The informant stating himself to be the authorized representation of Manoj Kumar Agarwal-opposite party No. 2, averred in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was granted a mining lease over an area of 114.93 hectares for manganese and iron ores by the Government of Orissa, in village Dadwan (Inganijharan), Chamkpur, in the district of Keonjhar. The said mine remained idle for which the petitioner approached the opposite party No, 2 for transfer of the said mine in his favour. The opposite party No. 2 was in search of a mine to meet the requirements of raw materials for his manufacturing unit. Accordingly, the petitioner and the opposite party No. 2 entered into an agreement on. 6/11.4.2003 for transfer of the mining lease. It was further stated in the F.I.R. that it was agreed to between the parties that the mine will be transferred to the opposite party No. 2 by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 90,00,000, to be paid by opposite party No.2, only after due execution of transfer of mining lease deed in the prescribed form as laid down in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. The said amount was to be paid towards the amounts spent by the petitioner for development cost etc. including properties held by him in the mining lease area and adjacent to the area. It was further stipulated that till the transfer of the mining lease is effected in favour of the opposite party No.2, the petitioner will extract ores from the lease hold area and shall supply the same exclusively to the opposite party No. 2 at a rate 12% less, as being charged by Orissa Mining Corporation, for different grades and sizes. It was further stipulated that the transfer of the mining lease should be completed within a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 paid Rs. 4,00,000 (rupees four lakhs) as advance to the petitioner for meeting preliminary expenses as per the terms of the agreement. On receipt of the advance amount, the petitioner created a mortgage over some of the properties, particulars of which were mentioned in the F.I.R. as a security, till execution and registration of the transfer of the mining lease, but the opposite party No.2 subsequently came to learn that the petitioner has already sold the said plots of land prior to execution of the agreement and fraudulently misrepresented to the opposite party No. 2 and induced him to pay the advance of Rs. 4,00,000. ft was alleged that in these circumstances, the petitioner has committed fraud and criminal breach of trust in a well planned manner for cheating the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) Facts of the case further reveal that in the agreement, it was clearly stated that a writ petition being OJC No. 15764 of 1998 is pending in the High Court where this Court has passed an interim order on 25.11.1998 to the effect that no person shall operate the mine unless he has got a lease for the area. It was further indicated in the agreement that all disputes should be settled by the first party before effecting the transfer of mining lease to the second party with a further disclosure of the fact that the dispute, if any, between the first party and M/s. Vijoy Minerals Pvt. Ltd. should be settled by the first party in consultation with the second party so as to work on the area and also to give effect to the transfer deed. In the aforesaid writ petition, which was disposed of by this Court on 7.4.2004, this Court held thaf it may not be possible to decide the inter se dispute between the petitioner, i.e., the petitioner herein and M/s. Vijoy Minerals Pvt. Ltd., because, the dispute in the writ petition relates to non- renewal of the mining lease in favour of the petitioner. A direction was issued to the Government to pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner dated 1.11.1994 for renewal of the lease. It was further stipulated in the said order that in case the State Government passes order renewing the lease in favour of the petitioner, the rights of the petitioner and M/s. Vijoy Minerals Pvt. Ltd. inter se will be governed by the compromise decree between them unless the compromise decree is set aside by an appropriate Court. Further direction was issued that if the petitioner applies to the State Government for operating the mining lease pending orders to be passed by the State Government on the renewal application, it would be open for the State Government to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. All pending Misc. Cases stood disposed of.

(3.) The compromise decree referred to in the said order was passed in a suit bearing No. 392 of 1994 by the Calcutta High Court filed by said M/s. Vijoy Minerals Pvt. Ltd. against the petitioner. In the said compromise decree dated 1.8.1996, the petitioner was obliged to sell the ores and manganese from the leasehold area of the petitioner to M/s. Vijoy Minerals Pvt. Ltd.