ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused -petitioners for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in Prabahore P.S. Case No. 328/98 under Sections 420/ 406 of the Indian Penal Code, including the order dated 8.3.2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna rejecting the prayer of discharge made from the side of the petitioners.

(2.) THE above mentioned case was registered on the basis of written information given by Manish Kumar, the informant to the effect that the petitioners, Anil Kumar and his wife, Urmila Devi had entered into an agreement to sell double storeyed house bearing Holding No. 147/161 situated at Mohalla Bakarganj, Patna to the informant and his aunt, Smt. Mala Devi on an agreed cost of Rupees Six Lacs. The agreement was entered on 31.10.1997 and the informant and his aunt paid an amount of Rs. Four Lacs towards advance to the consideration amount as an earnest money. As per the agreement assurance was there to execute the sale deed by 30th April, 1998 but although several requests were made to execute the sale deed, the petitioners did not accede to it. The informant had also filed a suit for specific performance being Title Suit No. 334 of 1998, against the petitioners and then the present case was filed which was registered as G.R. No. 4861/ 98. After the investigation charge -sheet had been submitted under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and processes were issued against the petitioners. On appearance the petitioners filed a petition for discharge but the same had been rejected by the impugned order.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the case of the informant, if be taken in toto to be correct, then also the same only reveal a dispute of civil nature and no criminality can be attached to it. His further submission is that no inducement can be there which is a pre -condition for an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, no entrustment is also there. The submissions made for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Court below had been annulled by the impugned order holding that on the circumstances and factual aspect of the case criminal offence prima facie could be made out against the petitioners and as such charges could be framed under Sections 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code. The informants side had also appeared and submitted that even if there is civil liability then also criminality cannot be altogether brushed aside if from the circumstances it could be shown that with prior intention of cheating the petitioners had entered into the agreement of sale. It further appears that the petitioner No. 1 earlier filed a criminal case against the informant on the plea that the deed of agreement had been stolen away from his house by the informant but that criminal case had been dismissed.