LAWS(PAT)-2017-4-34

DILIP KUMAR KOCHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On April 11, 2017
Dilip Kumar Kochar Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned Advocate for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) The present application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. C-560 of 2012 including the order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hilsa whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The complainant-opposite party no.2 filed the present complaint alleging therein that he is the owner of a piece of land bearing Khata No. 32, Khesra No. 182 having an area of 14 decimal in the village Chauki Hurari under Karai Parusarai police station in the district of Nalanda. The said land was gifted to the complainant-opposite party no.2 by her maternal grandmother by a deed of gift dated 25.11.195 It is alleged that the accused persons proposed to buy the said land for the purpose of establishing a cement factory of Ultratech Cement Ltd. (for short 'the company'). After negotiation, the consideration amount was fixed at Rs. 268800.00 out of which Rs. 26880.00 was paid by way of advance at the time agreement. It is alleged that at the time of registration of the sale deed on 24.12.2011 the accused persons assured the complainant to pay the remaining amount through cheque after his acceptance before the Registrar. The opposite party no.2 after the registration demanded the cheque but the accused persons refused to give the cheque. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 sent a legal notice calling for the payment of the remaining amount which was not replied in proper manner and, finally, the accused persons refused to pay the said amount on 1st July, 2012. The opposite party no.2 alleged that the accused persons have cheated him by giving him false assurance.