MUMTAZ ALAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order dated 15.01.2007 passed in Complaint Case N0.1975 -C of 2006 by Ms. Saroj Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Patna, by which she has taken cognizance under section 406 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) AFTER the Counsels for respective parties were heard at length, the Court felt the necessity of perusing the documents that had been mentioned in the Petitionees application and required him to file the same. Hence by way of a Supplementary Affidavit, the communication between the BICICO and the Petitioner were brought on record. None of them are disputed by the Opposite Party No.2.

(3.) IN this background, let us examine the allegations in the Complaint. Delineating the history of the transaction he stated that one M/s Barway Granite and Stone Co. Pvt.Ltd. (later on known as Ranchi Granite and Stone Co. Pvt. Ltd.) was provided a Term Loan by Bihar State Credit & Investment Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as "BICICO") against hypothecation of all its fixed assets including 90 decimals of free hold land on which it was situated. The BICICO had taken over the said unit on default of repayment of loan under section 29 of the SFC Act and advertised the same for sale for recovery of its dues. The Complainant learnt of the offer from the website of BICICO and enquired about it. The Complainant was shown the certified copies of the purported mutation by the Petitioner and explained as to how BICICO was the legal owner. Induced and encouraged by their version, the Complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/ - as earnest money and offered to purchase the entire fixed assets including 90 decimals of free hold land for total consideration of Rs.51.00lacs which was later increased to 53.12 lacs. The BICICO accepted the offer by letter dated 14.06.2005. The Complainant as Director of M/s Vedant Granite Pvt. Ltd. made payment of Rs.26lacs by 13.08.2005 and received Photostat copies of the documents. On verification, after visiting to Ranchi, he learnt that the documents were forged and fictitious. So, he intimated the BICICO about this fact by letter dated 31.10.05 and again by sending reminders but was surprised to find that the accused had no care and concern nor taking any action in the matter and realised that he had been cheated. It was, therefore, alleged that the accused persons in conspiracy with the management of the original unit holder and on the basis of forged papers claiming right of ownership obtained a sum of Rs.27,00,000/ - from the Complainant and retained it for 8 months and they also dishonestly refused to return rupees one lac. They thereby caused loss of almost 3.5 lacs as interest to him.