SANJAY SUCHANTI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have filed this application for quashing order dated &apos18.2.2002 (Annexure -4) passed by Shri A.N. Upadhyay, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1970C of 2001 taking cognizance under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code (In short "IPC").

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint petition in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging therein that he is a proprietor of a firm carrying on business, known as M/s Elphinstone Palace, Patna, of exhibition of films and co -accused Sushil Jain is one of the Directors of a Company named M/s Anjana Movies (Private) Limited carrying on the business of distribution of motion pictures and this Company is duly incorporated Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and petitioners who are Directors of Anjana Movies (Private) Limited, co - accused Sushil Jain and M/s Anjana Movies (Private) Limited are members of Bihar Motion Pictures Association which is aiso a duly incorporated company and association of motion picture producer, distributors and exhibiters carrying their business in the film trade in the territory of Bihar and Nepal. Further case of opposite p y No. 2 was that co -accused Sushil Jain claimed that he was assigned the distribution right of the picture named "Aashique" for the territory of Bihar and Nepal and he approached opposite party No, 2 and requested him to exhibit his picture which was to be released on 26.1.2001 in the cinema hall of opposite party No. 2 and demanded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ - in advance on the ground that he was in need of money for sending it to producer before release of picture and opposite party No. 2 accepted the proposal of co -accused Sushil Jain and paid him a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ -. Thereafter, in the month of January, 2001, opposite party No. 2 got information that distribution, exhibition and exploitation right of picture "Aashique" were not with petitioners and he then contacted co -accused Sushil Jain to refund his advanced money of Rs. 2,00,000/ - and in this regard, he also wrote a letter to co -accused Sushil Jain on 5.1.2001 but he did not receive any reply. After that, the aforesaid picture was released on 26.2.2001 and opposite party No. 2 was mentally shocked to know that the right of picture was not with the petitioners and he made several requests to petitioners to return the advanced amount given by him but neither the petitioners gave any reply nor they returned the amount. Opposite party No. 2 then filed complaint petition alleging therein that he was cheated by petitioners. The petition of opposite party No. 2 was registered as Complaint Case No. 1970 C of 2001 and after enquiry under Section 202 of Criminal Procedure Code (In short "CrPC"), cognizance against the present petitioners and some others was taken under Section 420 of IPC.

(3.) NOTICE to opposite party No. 2 was issued which was served on opposite party No. 2 who filed a vakalatnama which is on the record but at the time of hearing, no body appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2.