SAKAL DEEP UPADHAYAYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with a prayer to quash the first information report lodged against him under Sections 417, 418, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass :

(3.) Mr. Bajaj appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that from the allegation made in the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that the dispute is of civil nature and, as such, no criminal case could have been instituted against the petitioner. Secondly, it is submitted that the petitioner has already filed a title Suit No. 64/94 against the University with a prayer to refer the matter to the arbitrator for arbitration and by letter dated 27.4.1994 the Registrar requested Mr. Mehta, Advocate to act as an Arbitrator, So, Mr. Bajaj contends that upto 27.4.1994 the University did not find time to lodge any F.I.R. and only because the petitioner filed the aforesaid title suit alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner was entitled to get eleven lacs and odd from the University, as a counter blast, this F.I.R. was lodged. Referring to various annexures annexed to the writ application, it is contended that on 29.4.1991 a notice was given to the University to take over the possession but the F.I.R. shows only on 6.2.1993 the University team and visited Chaibasa and found the building in that condition. Relying on a decision rendered in the case of Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia and Ors. v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Anyre and Ors. , Mr. Bajaj has concluded his argument by submitting that under similar circumstance the Supreme Court has quashed the whole prosecution.