AMRIT SAGAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) THE complainant is represented. A complaint was filed inter alia that the complainant acting on power of attorney of his wife had applied for dealership of Sonalika International Tractor Ltd. which has its Head Office at Sonalika House Karkardoma, Delhi. For the said dealership he had deposited rupees three lacs. He was given two tractors to be sold. Thereafter, tractor was supplied to another person and the dealership was cancelled. The security deposit was forfeited. It is, thus, alleged that the complainant had been cheated. The complaint having been filed the matter was referred to the police for investigation. After investigation the police filed final report but the Court after examining the witnesses found that no case was made out and refused to take cognizance. The complainant then went in revision before Sessions Judge who elaborately discussed various aspects of the investigation and held that the order of the learned Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance was bad. It was, accordingly, set aside. The petitioners then challenged this order of the learned Sessions Judge before this Court in Cr. Revision No. 868/05 which was permitted to be withdrawn on 5.7.2006 clearly noticing that pursuant to the order of the Sessions Judge the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance which order could be challenged independently. In this application on behalf of the accused persons challenge has been made to the order taking cognizance dated 16.1.2006.

(3.) ON other hand, the complainant submits that the accused persons acted in a most arbitrary and whimsical manner in cancelling the dealership and as such, had committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. in conspiracy with each other.