SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) No one appears either on behalf of the complainant or on behalf of the State.

(3.) The petitioner in the present case is seeking quashing of the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Barh, District Patna in Complaint Case No. 373(C)/2013 by which the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 406, 504 of the Indian Penal Code issued summons to the accused-petitioner. A perusal of the complaint petition filed on 28.05.2013 in the court of the learned A.C.J.M., Barh (Patna) would show that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had received a sum of Rs. 24,50,000/- from the complainant by way of advance. He had agreed to execute a sale deed in respect of Plot No. 4849 under Khata No. 342 measuring 2 Kathha 14 Dhur, the description of which has been given in the complaint petition, for a total consideration amount of Rs. 24,50,000/-, out of which he had received Rs. 18,50,000/- from the complainant. The complainant alleged that he had given Rs. 24,50,000/- to the accused-petitioner but the petitioner neither executed the sale deed nor returned his amount of Rs. 24,50,000/-, therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the entire amount. It is further alleged that on 26.05.2013 the accused entered in the house of the complainant and took away one steel box in which a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was kept and further the wife of this petitioner had taken away one pair of gold ear rings from the wife of the complainant and the son of the present petitioner had taken away one gold chain from Bablu Kumar, who is the son of the complainant. It is also alleged that this petitioner said to have told the complainant that the amount of Rs. 24,50,000/- has been taken by way of rangdari tax. The complainant alleged that the information was given to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station but he did not lodge the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Annexure-2, which is an Agreement to Sell, the petitioner had agreed to sell the land for a consideration amount of Rs. 24,50,000/-, however, the complainant was unable to pay the entire amount and to get the sale deed executed, on which a Panchayati had also taken place in which it was agreed that the petitioner shall return a sum of Rs. 22,49,000/- which he had received. It was also agreed that the amount will be returned by way of a cheque. Learned counsel refers to Annexure-3, which is the statement of account of the present petitioner to show that the amount as agreed was returned to the complainant through bank transactions and these returns were already made prior to 28.05.2013.