BHARTU WORAH @ BHARTENDU WORAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. S.D. Sanjay learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) to quash the order taking cognizance dated 27.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 643(C) of 2005 by which cognizance for offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken and summons issued to the petitioners. The complaint petition in brief alleges that the petitioners who were the Directors of M/s Eastern Nephtha-Chem Ltd., Dhanbad and manufacturer of crude sodium sulphate represented to the complainant, that is, opposite party no. 2, who is the Manager of the informant M/s United Paper Boards Ltd., that they had intended to appoint the complainants firm as their commission agent. It is alleged that on such representation the complainant became interested and setting up a network in the trade world on personal level and after taking order on behalf of the petitioners firm, business was generated but because of their fraudulent intention to not pay the commission due to the complainant which was quantified to be near about L 7,00,000/- the complaint was filed against the petitioners under various sections including Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) After conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code the Magistrate after recording the evidence of the complainant on solemn affirmation and also recording evidence of two other witnesses took cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by order dated 27.1.2006 against the petitioners which is impugned in the present case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that present is the case which is covered under the category of the celebrated case on the issue being State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp1 SCC 335. which stipulates that if upon the plain reading of the complaint petition itself no offence is made out, such complaint cases should not be allowed to continue and need to be quashed at the very inception.