DEEPAK SINGHANIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 03.3.2006 passed by S.D.J.M., Bettiah in Complaint Case No.2532 of 2005 under Sections 380, 406, 420, 504 and 506/34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) COMPLAINANT 's case, in brief, is that petitioner and other co- accused persons had come to Bettiah in connection with their suits pending there and where to engage a lawyer. Petitioner was contacted as being a local lawyer and on his reference they contacted witness no.1 an advocate of Patna, who had come to Bettiah in connection with some case. Fees of both the lawyers were settled and was agreed to pay the same within fifteen days through cheques. On assurance of the accused persons their case was conducted on behalf of the complainant and witness no.1. On different dates in civil suits as well as in criminal cases, both the lawyers made submission (arguments) as many as in fifty one (51) cases on their behalf. Complainant sent his bill from time to time, but payment was made partly of the complainant and witness no.1. Assurance only was being given, on objection raised on their behalf, but there remained an amount of Rs.56,000.00 towards the fees of complainant on 24.11.2005. Complainant and witness no.1 demanded their dues fees; payment was assured to be made at the house of complainant, witness no.1 as well as accused persons came there. After discussion on payment, co-accused Regi Mathau became furious and abused lawyers that they were thieves; other co-accused persons supported this petitioner. They threatened not to pay the remaining fee, took away briefcase of witness no.1 containing Rs.5,000.00, Rs.1,000.00 kept on the table of the complainant threw flower pot, files and books on the floor. Simultaneously, another complaint case also filed on behalf of witness no.1, witnesses examined in both the cases under Section 202 of the Cr. P. C.

(3.) SUBMISSION on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same legal and factual points were involved in both the cases, which is for consideration of this Court also. On the point of offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. it is further submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that defence was accepted that there was no fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very beginning essential for constituting the offence under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and no ingredient was existing about constituting the offence under Section 406 of the I.P.C. as there was no entrustment as in this case. I also agree with the observation made in that case.