SUNNY SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel papering on behalf of the State.

(2.) The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 24.01.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, Patna whereby and where under the Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner in connection with Complaint Case No. 1064(C) of 2007 as also the revisional order passed against the same by the Court of Sessions, Patna on 12.05.2014 in Revision Case No. 4163 of 2014.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has alleged that the brother of the present petitioner, namely, Gautam Sah entered into an agreement dated 11.05.2007 regarding sale of Makhana in accordance with the agreement. The complainant was to supply the Makhana to accused No. 1, namely, Gautam Sah. In the said agreement, the petitioner came to be the witness to this agreement along with one Ashok Kumar. Therefore, it is submitted that there was a relationship of supplier and purchaser between the complainant and the brother of the present petitioner. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is mere a signatory to the agreement and has nothing to do with transaction which were to be entered into by the parties. It is, therefore, submitted that no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody in pursuance of the complaint filed by the opposite party No. 2 and, therefore, he was constrained and compelled to make certain deposits in the Court below as a condition precedent to the grant of his order of bail. It is further submitted that if at all, there is any offence made out, it is the brother of the petitioner who can be held liable, but the petitioner could not be saddled with the allegation under Sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code as he has not committed any criminal breach of trust. It is thus, submitted that the learned Magistrate has seriously erred in taking cognizance against the aforementioned section and continuance of such a proceeding would amount to an abuse of process of Court.