MUNAKIYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI and Yamuna Dayal @ Yamuna Prasad @ Jamuna Prasad happen to be petitioners out of whom Munakiya Devi died during pendency of instant petition hence her name has been deleted from the column of the petitioners vide order dated 21.12.2011 as well as Cr. Misc. No. 342 of 2010 filed by petitioner, Keshav Prasad originate from the same Complaint Case No. 991((THELAW)) of 2009 challenging the order dated 21.11.2009 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance for an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 477, 120B of the IPC for which they have been summoned.

(2.) CR. Misc. No. 18404 of 2010 happens to be filed by Keshaw Prasad against an order dated 17.08.2007 passed by learned lower court in connection with Compliant Case No. 1482((THELAW)) of 2007 taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B of the IPC and thereby summoning the petitioner along with others. In both the complaint petitions, Amarnath Sinha happens to be complainant who stood figured in all the Cr. Misc. petitions as O.P. No.2.

(3.) FURTHERMORE, It has been submitted that the whole narration whatever alleged did not specify that at the time of negotiation there was any sort of fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioners. Then, it has been submitted that actually the complainant ( O.P. No.2) could not honour the terms of agreement within the stipulated period so incorporated under deed of agreement failing which the earnest money whatever been paid was subject to forfeiture and only to put upon the petitioners undue pressure, after expiry of the effectiveness of the agreement by efflux of time two complaint petitions at different stages for the same cause have been filed. Apart from this, it has further been submitted that it happens to be simply a case of breach of contract without attracting criminal prosecution which the Complainant (O.P. No.2) was well aware and the subsequent step of the complainant (O.P. No.2) does specify by having Title Suit No. 142/2009 filed on his behalf. Accordingly, order of cognizance in both the complaint petition is fit to be set aside.