DHANRAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for quashing the Complaint Case No. 59(c) of 2005 as well as the order dated 16.6.2005 passed by Sri Premchand Anal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna summoning the petitioner to stand trial in the said complaint under Sections 147, 148 and 380 of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE complainant filed a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 7.1.2005 alleging that on 29.12.2004 at 8.30 P.M. all the accused persons named in the complaint petition carrying firearms came to the shop premises of the complainant and took away all the articles. Thereafter loading the articles on a tractor they went away. The petitioner is accused No. 3 in this case. Accused persons are M/s Contract Carriers Limited a Company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at 14/3 Chhatawali Gali, Calcutta through its Director, Sri Dhanraj Singh (petitioner) in this case and the Branch Office of M/s Contract Carriers Limited as well as the present petitioner Accused No. 3, apart from other accused persons who were also Directors of the aforesaid Contract Carriers Limited. Accused No.1 entered into a development agreement with M/s Brahmanand Developers Private Ltd. on 28.3.2001 for getting the disputed land developed. The developer entered into an agreement for sale for collecting fund with the first party on 28.10.2001 in respect of shops/offices in terms of the development agreement. The development agreement authorises the Developer Company to retain 50% of the constructed portion of Dhanraj Tower in lieu of the construction cost. In order to arrange the necessary fund for the construction of Dhanraj Tower, the Development Agreement further empowers the Developer Company to enter into agreement for sale with the intending purchasers in respect of its share being developer 'sshare. The complainant, Opposite Party No. 2, after having come to know about the construction of the Dhanraj Tower over the scheduled land, entered into the agreement for sale dated 28.10.2001 with the Developer after paying proper consideration money. The complainant came in peaceful physical possession over the aforesaid premises in the month of January, 2002. In course of doing the business, the complainant used to keep and possess goods amounting to Rs. 1,50,000.00 approximately. The complainant had taken appropriate legal steps before the authority of law and the court of law.

(3.) THE case of Opposite Party No. 2 complainant is that on 29.12.2004 at abo 'ut 8.30 P.M. all the accused persons armed with firearm entered into the Dhanraj Tower after breaking the lock of the said premises. All of them entered into the said premises and looted away all the articles kept in the premises. The accused persons set fire in the premises in which the fixture and furniture as well as other valuable documents were burnt. All the accused persons threatened the staff and security guard of the complainant and forced them to leave the said premises in order to save their lives and informed the complainant on telephone about the incident. The complainant came to the local police station and complained in writing. But the local police appears to be under undue influence of accused No. 3, petitioner in this case. The cognizance of offence was taken under Sections 147, 148, 389, 452, 384, 436, 341/34 and 120B of the I.P. C. on complaint petition.