PREM KUMAR DARUKA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the Code" in short) has been preferred by the petitioners Prem Kumar Daruka and Manish Kumar praying therein to quash the entire prosecution as well order dated 20.04.1996 recorded by Shri S.K. Roy, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad in Complaint Case No. 175/96 corresponding to Tr. No. 623/96 under which the accused petitioners were summoned to face trial for the offence under sections 420 and 323. of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the complainant Arun Kumar Singh, Opposite party No. 2, an employee in the Civil Courts at Aurangabad, had filed a complaint case on 9.4.1996 under sections 420 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner No. 1 and his son petitioner No. 2 alleging that he had registered himself with the Gas Agency of petitioner No. 1 for a new gas connection. But the petitioners had changed his name from Arun Kumar Singh to Anil Kumar Singh and despite requests the petitioners did not correct the mistake. On a complaint to the Collector, after enquiry, the Deputy Collector directed the petitioners to allot gas connection which was refused. It was further claimed in the complaint petition, copy of which is annexed, that one day when he went to the work place to the petitioners, he was again refused the gas connection and on protest by the complainant both the petitioners had pushed him out of the premises which also caused him hurt. It was claimed that this was done by the petitioners for realising illegal money from the complainant which act had caused the complainant a loss of Rs. 5,000/ -.

(3.) SHRI Sinha, learned Advocates for the petitioners, has argued that though from the documents that have been filed with the application, the entire allegations would be negatived, but even from the facts mentioned in the complaint petition it will appear that no offence whatsoever was made out, hence cognizance was bad in law. On the other hand, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 and learned counsel for the State have argued that the facts disclosed offence, hence the petitioners were rightly summoned to face the trial.