NAGINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four charge sheeted accused of Gardanibagh (Shastrinagar) P.S. Case No. 156 of 2007 have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 26.3.2008 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC against all the petitioners.

(2.) THE prosecution case is founded on the written report submitted on 7.3.2007 by one Manoj Kumar Sharma claiming to be the Chief Executive of Sundarnagar Grih Nirman Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd. Patna, wherein it was stated inter alia that on 4.4.2006 he had signed a development agreement with petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 on their persuasion in respect of 36 decimals of land appertaining to khata No. 38, survey plot No. 99 at the rate of Rs. 6,50,000/ - per katha and at the time of signing of the agreement a cheque of Rs. 3,00,000/ - and cash to the tune of Rs. 4,65,000/ - was paid to them. It is also stated that the balance amount was paid by cheques and cash on various dates making up the total amount of Rs. 74,88,000/ -. It is also stated that since some legal problems arose with the Government in respect of some portion of the lands in question a fresh development agreement was prepared on 29.6.2006 in respect of those areas after the problems were resolved and the payments were accordingly adjusted. It is alleged that a cheque of Rs. 18,15,500/ - was given to the petitioner No. 4 and another cheque of Rs. 7,80,000/ - was given to petitioner No. 3 by way of security on the understanding that when the amount in cash was paid to them by the Samiti the cheques would be returned but notwithstanding the payment of money by cash, the cheques were not being returned. Reminders sent had no effective response whereupon the informant got the payments stopped. It is alleged that legal notices dated 25.1.2007 and 14.10.2006 sent to them evoked no response and the petitioners kept postponing the registration of the lands in question on one pretext or the other. Apprehending foul play, the informant is said to have enquired at the registration office and came to know that the lands had already been sold to M/s. Tribhuwan Developer and Construction Pvt. Ltd.

(3.) ON the basis of the said written report the aforesaid case was registered under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.