NAGENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this application the two petitioners herein who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. 155 of 2005 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 12.4.2005 whereby Sri K.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Gopalganj, has taken cognizance therein for commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420/34 I.P.C. against the petitioners.

(2.) ONE Madan Singh, O.P. No. 2 herein filed the aforesaid Complaint Case stating inter alia that after partition in the year 1960, he was living separate from his brother and that he had three daughters only, namely, Pratibha Devi, Sarita Devi and Rekha Devi, all of whom were married off. It is said that the petitioner no. 1 was his son -in -law, the husband of Sarita Devi and petitioner no. 2 was the brother -in -law (Bahnoie) of petitioner no. 1. It is further said that as the complainant had no son, he and his wife were being looked after by petitioner no. 1 who by virtue thereof and the care and nursing provided by him had developed very close relationship with the complainant and the complainant started specially favouring petitioner no.1. It is also said that petitioner no. 2 frequently visited the house of the complainant alongwith petitioner no. 1. It is alleged that petitioner no. 1 took the complainant and his wife to several religious places and in course thereof petitioner no.1 induced and advised the complainant to sell his lands and house and to settle with him. It is further alleged that on the advice given by petitioner no. 1, the complainant sold his lands and house and went to village -Yadav Pipra to live with his daughter Sarita where all his daily expenses were met by petitioner no. 1. It is said that in the meanwhile the wife of the complainant expired while they were living with petitioner no.1. It is further said that petitioner no. 2 filed a case against Phuldeo Singh, the purchaser of the house of the complainant and by virtue of compromise got back the house and handed over the possession thereof to the complainant by registered -deed wherein the petitioner no. 1 by way of mischief and fraud enlisted his own name instead of that of the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 1 kept instigating the complainant to sell all remaining portions of his lands and induced thereby the complainant sold about 9 and quarter kathas of land to his nephew Rajendra Singh at an agreed amount of Rs. 1,13,000/ -. On 7.11.2001 the complainant was summoned to Gopalganj by his nephew and in pursuance thereof the complainant with the two petitioners went to Gopalganj where Rajendra Singh took out Rs. 70,000/ - from his Bank and handed over the same to the complainant and on the advice of petitioner no. 2 the amount was deposited in the account of petitioner no. 2 as he had blind faith on the two petitioners. Thereafter the balance amount of Rs. 43,000/ -from the nephew and another amount of Rs. 35,000/ - towards consideration money for the sale of other lands as received by the complainant were also deposited in the account of petitioner no. 2. After the sale -deed had been executed and on the death of the complainant 'swife the two petitioners started misbehaving with the complainant and started demanding money and house whereupon Panchayati was held where as per the dictates of the Panches petitioner no. 1 returned back the house of the complainant to him by registered -deed dated 1.7.2002 and promised to return back the amount of consideration money worth Rs. 1,48,000/ -. However, notwithstanding the passage of one year money had not been returned and they were avoiding payment under one pretext or the other which had caused mental and financial harm to the complainant.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from perusal of the complaint petition, it would be apparent that the complaint had been filed for recovery of money from the two petitioners which in effect was a civil wrong and the remedy, therefor, was available in the Civil Court by way of suit and no criminal liability had accrued on any of the petitioners.