K SHRIDHAR RAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ashutosh Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 10.7.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bhagalpur in Complaint case no. 160 of 1995. by which learned Magistrate took cognizance of and offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. The aforesaid complaint case arises out of a complaint filed by opposite party no.2 making certain allegation against the petitioners. From the complaint petition it appears that the petitioners took on lease certain premises belonging to the complainant for the purpose of godown for a fixed period of five years and an agreement to lease was Executed incurred certain terms and conditions of tenancy. Paragraphs 6, 7, 8, and 9 for the complaint petition are worth to be quoted hereinbelow : That to further convince and allure, the accused persons made regular payment of the rent till last bat for the reasons beat known to the accused persons, they have not complied the formalities pertaining to the lease, Agreement which has given rise to file this complaint and serious apprehension.

(2.) THAT the complainant has received notice for vacation of the godown on 22.12.1995. That upon the vacation of the godwon by the accused persons, it would cause heavy leas, harassment and mental agony to the complainant because she would have no any other alternative but to dismantle the structure as the same would be useless after vacation. That in this way the accused persons by adopting such calculated, mala fide, sinister design have Criminally breached the trust of the complainant and have cheated her ultimately putting her to immense less, harassment and mental agony. The complainants case is that because of the vacation of godown by the petitioners before expiry of five years the complainant sustained heavy loss. It was also alleged that by the above act the complainant, In fact, has been cheated by the petitioner. On the basis of this allegation made in the complaint together with the consistent statement recorded in S.A learned Magistrate took cognizance of the impugned order. From perusal of the complaint petition. I do not find, any, fact, which is the result of cheating by the petitioners. It is, in fact, a simple case of dispute between the landlord and tenant. Even assuming that the petitioner have committed breach of the terms of tenancy then complainant has remedy available in civil law but no offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Learned court below have not taken a correct approach of law and have failed to consider the nature of liability of the petitioners in the event the allegations made by the complainants are true.

(3.) IN that view of the matte, I allow this application and quash the impugned under dated 10.7.1996 taking cognizance of an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners.