RANJIT PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.8.96 (passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar in G.R. case No. 405 of 1995 taking cognizance of offence under Sections 420, 406 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and also for quashing the entire prosecution of Jasidih P.S. Case No. 105 of 1995 pending in the Court of Sri B.B. Lal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Deoghar.

(2.) THE fact leading to filing of this application can be briefly stated as such ; That the petitioner, who was proprietor of M/s. Paints Varnish, was sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 2.50 lacs by the Bihar State Finance Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as the Corporation) which has now swelled upto Rs. 16,63,667.57 paise (as per counter affidavit) including principal and interest. Sri U.C. Mishra, Branch Manager of the Corporation at Deoghar filed a written report against the petitioner on 31.12.94 alleging further that after getting loan of Rs. 2.50 lacs, this petitioner issued letter of hypothecation on 30.6.79 as well as indenture of agreement dated 30.8.79 agreeing that the assets of the unit shall be held as the exclusive property of the Corporation and as such it was basic responsibility of the petitioner to safeguard hypothecated articles and the petitioner was also guarantor of the loan in his personal capacity. In the written report, it was further alleged that factory of the petitioner was inspected by Sri B.R. Mandal, Deputy Manager and Area Incharge who fond that the tools, machinery and parts as well as other materials of the building, detailed in the written report, were removed Jasidih P.S. case No. 105 of 1995 dated 1.7.95 was registered under Secs. 406, 420 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code against this petitioner and the police submitted charge sheet against this petitioner whereupon the impugned order dated 28.8.96 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deoghar.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, from simple reading of the written report of the Branch Manager which has been treated as F.I.R. no offence under Secs. 420, 406 and 403 of the I.P.C. was constituted and that even uncontroverted allegation made in the written report and the evidence collected in support of it, did not disclose the commission of any offence making out a case against the petitioner. It was asserted that the allegation in the written report at best make out a case of civil dispute and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed grave error in not applying his judicial mind before taking cognizance. The petitioners case is that the allegations are absurd inherently improbable, and that of the offence under Secs. 402, (sic) 406 and 403 of the I.P.C. have not been disclosed in the written report and as such the impugned order taking cognizance and continuation of the prosecution case will tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such not sustainable factually and legally.