SUNIL KUMAR BOOBNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

(2.) THE order taking cognizance dated 21.9.96 under Sections 420,468 and 120B IPC including the entire criminal proceedings have been challenged by the petitioners by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has challenged the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in entertaining the complaint petition by submitting that when entire cause of action, according to the complainant himself, arose at Patna, the court at Giridih had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint petition. Countering this argument, it is contended on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 that when the money was paid at Giridih, part of action did arise there and as such, the court at Giridih was competent to take cognizance. Second contention of Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha is that the allegations made in the complaint petition do not constitute any offence inasmuch as even assuming that the Board passed an order in favour of the complainant in regard to principal amount and cost but no order was passed to pay the interest @ 24% per annum. Admittedly, the counsel continues, the complainant moved the President and the Executive Committee in appeal but the same was dismissed. Moreover, on being moved by the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 the Board allowed them to pay the awarded amount on instalments. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any criminal intention of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 to cheat the complainant. To this argument, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha has contended that the intention of cheating was there at the very beginning when the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with the opposite party no. 2. He submits that even when the Executive Committee allowed the prayer of the contesting petitioners to pay the prinicipal amount and the cost by instalments, the entire amount was not paid, which shows the conduct of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. According to him, BIMPA not being a statutory body, its decision cannot be binding either on the complainant or the petitioner nos. 1 and 2. In his complaint the opposite party no. 2 has admitted that there is an Association of film distributors which is known as 'Bihar Motion Pictures Association ' and it has its own rules, which binds even the associate members like the complainant.