MANOJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners had instituted the First Information Report i.e. Gardanibagh P.S. Case No. 98 of 2006 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that Pramod Narayan Poddar opposite party No. 2 has forged the signature of the Petitioners and prepared a development agreement.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at the initial stage accepts that there was some oral talk of an agreement between the parties in which the Petitioner No. 1 had received a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

(3.) The opposite party No. 2 was taken into custody in the case instituted by the Petitioners. Thereafter he filed a complaint petition dated 14.2.2006 alleging therein that the Petitioners had entered into a development agreement with opposite party No. 2 for which they had advanced a sum of Rs. 9,45,000/-. It is said that the complainant learnt that the Petitioners had now entered into a development agreement with a third party which amounts to an act of cheating. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint petition, cognizance was taken on 1.5.2006. Learned Counsel refers to certain documents relating to the complaint case itself. The first is the compromise petition filed by the Petitioners and the petition filed by the Petitioners and the opposite party No. 2 by which the Petitioners agreed to return Rs. 3,00,000/- that they had taken by way of an advance. The Petitioners thus returned Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest thereon by Cheques and cash both. The parties filed an application to compromise the complaint case in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. However, after opposite party No. 2 was granted bail in Gardanibagh PS Case No. 98 of 2006, an application for withdrawal of the compromise petition was filed by the opposite party No. 2 stating therein that they were pressurized into compromising the case as the opposite party No. 2 was in custody in the case filed by the Petitioners.