SANJAY PRASAD Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.1.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 1384(C)/2006 by Sri Bharat Tiwari, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna whereby and whereunder finding a prima facie case to be made out under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, he has summoned the accused persons including the petitioner to face trial. The complainant -opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint on 22.5.2006 in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, alleging therein that the accused persons are the land owner, title holder and owner in possession of a piece of land bearing plot no. M/32 (new) and M/09 (old), Road No. 25, situated at Srikrishna Nagar, P.S. -Budha Colony, Town & District -Patna. The complainant claims to be the Managing Director of M/s. Makan Developers (I) Pvt. Ltd. He entered into Development Agreement on 14.4.2005 with the accused persons and by virtue of the said agreement, the complainant was under obligation to construct a multi -storied building over the said plot under the terms and conditions incorporated in the said Development Agreement.

(2.) IT has further been alleged that at the time of execution and signing of the Development Agreement the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,04,000/ - (One Lakh Four Thousand) to the accused as signing amount which was refundable at the time of delivery of possession of the super structures erected and constructed by the complainant. It is stated that after execution of the Development Agreement the complainant, in good faith, spent and invested a sum of Rs. 10.00 lacs approximately over the project. The complainant, thereafter, requested the accused persons orally and in writing to submit form for sanction of map from Patna Regional Development Authority, Patna, permission from Housing Board and other documents/papers but the accused persons did not submit the required documents and papers with mala fide intention.

(3.) IT is lastly alleged in the complaint that the petitioner who is accused no. 2 in the complaint used to visit office of the complainant and demand money illegally to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/ - (Ten Lakhs). He is also alleged to have threatened the complainant not to enter into the land in question.