PRADEEP KUMAR NAYAK Vs. DEEPAK SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this proceeding U/s. 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made to quash the cognizance order dated 9.11.2009 passed by the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar in 1CC Case No.1673/2009 (Annexure-2).

(2.) Vide impugned order, learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar has taken cognizance U/s.420/506 of IPC and proceeded against three accused persons, out of whom, one is the petitioner, while two others are opposite party nos.2 and 3 and the complainant is opposite party no.1. The present petitioner was the owner of a plot at Mouza- Kalarahanga. The complainant entered into an agreement with the petitioner-accused on 16.03.2005 to purchase the same and accused received total consideration amount of Rs.2,97,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Ninety Seven thousand) only. It was agreed that the sale deed would be executed within seven months. Instead of honouring the agreement, the accused sold the same property in favour of other two accused persons who are opposite parties 2 and 3 by Registered Sale Deed dated 10.04.2008. When the complainant confronted the situation, accused persons became furious and threatened him. The complaint was filed on 17.04.2009. Statement of two witnesses U/s. 202 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. As stated above on 9.12.2009, cognizance order was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the agreement which was filed with the complaint having revealed refund clause for consideration paid and the complainant having not filed any case after seven months stipulated therein for non-execution of Registered Sale Deed, it cannot be said that the accused had dishonest intention from the inception and for that offence U/s. 420 of IPC is not made out. Secondly, it is submitted that if the complaint petition and statement of the complainant recorded U/s. 200 of Cr.P.C. and of two witnesses recorded U/s. 202 Cr.P.C. are to be read as a whole, the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation U/s.506 of IPC are not satisfied, because none of them has stated about the manner of threat, time and place. According to him, such omnibus general statement should not be taken into consideration as the complaint was filed for the breach of contract maliciously.