DINESH PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), have prayed for quashing of the order dated 19.8.1998 passed by Shri M.S. Ali, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Beugsarai in G.R. Case No.2883 of 1995/T.R. No.568 of 1998 arising out of Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No.289 of 1995. By the order dated 19.8.1998, the learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioners.

(2.) Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has challenged the order of rejecting the discharge petition mainly on the ground that before removing the articles from the premises in question it was intimated by the partnership firm to the Branch Manager, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Begusarai. Virtually, he has confined his submission only on the basis of Annexure-5 to the petition. He submits that since the Corporation was already intimated regarding removal of the goods, it cannot be said that offence either under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by these petitioners.

(3.) Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2- Corporation has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. M.K. Khare, A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State supported the stand of the learned counsel for opposite party no.2. He has also referred to several paragraphs of the counter affidavit, which was filed by the Corporation. While referring to paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit, he has submitted that in indenture of agreement dated 1.9.1986, Clause-11, it was specifically stipulated that the concern will not change its constitution without prior permission of the Corporation. He submits that before taking the plea of executing the deed of retirement of the partner from the said Partnership Firm neither Corporation was informed nor prior permission was obtained. He also referred paragraph-10 of the counter affidavit of the Corporation and submits that agreement specifically makes it clear that assets created at the site shall not be removed without the consent of the Corporation and there is specific agreement for mortgaging the site as well as assets created at the site. On these grounds Mr. M.K.Thakur, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, opposed the prayer of the petitioners. He submits that the order rejecting the discharge petition is completely in accordance with law.