RITENDRA NATH BERMAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing order dated 19.7.2002 recorded by Sri K.K. Sinha, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 1428 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct issuance of summonses against the three petitioners to face trial under Sections 420 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE factual matrix are as follows : The complainant entered into an agreement with the Special Officer of the Municipality at Katihar (Annexure - 3) relating to the realisation of toll from the shops at a particular place and after that agreement the money agreed upon was deposited by the complainant in the Municipality. It has been claimed that subsequently it came out that the land, on which shops were, belonged to the Public Works Department and thereafter toll collection was stopped which way the petitioners claims to have been cheated out of the amount deposited by him with the Municipality. The petitioners, as per complaint itself, are Accountant, Tax Collector of Katihar Municipality and the third petitioner is a Typist in that Municipality. The further fact is that, vice Annexure -2, the complainant had filed money suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge I, Katihar on the same subject in which, besides State of Bihar and Katihar Municipality, the Special Officer of that Municipality was made defendants and realisation of the amount was sought against them.

(3.) IT is quite obvious on the face of the record that the petitioners were subordinates of the Special Officer of the Municipality and once the Special Officer had entered into an agreement with the complainant and money in accordance with that agreement was offered, the subordinates including the Accountant of the Katihar Municipality had to deposit, that amount and for that, from the averments of the complainant there does not appear to be any mens rea on the part of the petitioners, to cheat the complainant. When these queries were made, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 could not offer any explanation whereas learned Additional Public Prosecutor admitted that in the complainant no offence was made out against the petitioners.