ALOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in Complaint Case No. CA-843 of 2004 giving rise to Sultangunj P.S. Case No. 275 of 2005, have prayed for the quashing of the entire prosecution arising out of the said police case.

(2.) ONE Ranjan Kumar, the complainant/informant, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, filed the aforesaid complaint, inter alia stating that he is a business man having his own office at Patna, Bangalore and New Delhi and in course of his business he came into contact with the two petitioners and a business relationship developed between them. It is said that the petitioner, Alok Singh, has his own business in Kolkata and some time in the month of March, 2004 he along with accused No. 2, Adete Lahere came to the Mohammadpur, Patna, residence of the informant and explained to him about the proposed project in Port Blair and asked the informant to join as Director and purchase shares of their company, M/s. Travel Resources, East India Private Limited, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as "the Kolkata Company") in the presence of Amrendra Prasad and Devendra Kumar. It is alleged that Alok Singh repeatedly held telephonic discussions with the informant and on 17.6.2004 the informant sent a letter to the Chairperson of the Kolkata Company Adete Lahere with a request to visit his office at Bangalore. On 25.6.2004 a meeting was held at Bangalore between the informant and Alok Singh in the presence of C.S. Shreenivas and Mamta G. where the terms and conditions were discussed which included that the informant would be the Director for one year from 1st July, 2004 with a salary of Rs. 50,000/-per month and would also be entitled to travelling allowances and bonus of 10% of the turn over of the total business generated only through Port Blair Project and 60% of the shares of the Kolkata Company was offered to the informant for purchase and it was stated that the appointment letter would be sent, after incorporation of his name at R.O.C. A final decision was deferred at the instance of the informant as he wanted his Chartered Accountant, C.S. Shreeniwas, to go through the papers of the Kolkata Company and send his advice to the informant for further action. It was also decided that the informant would look into the matter with Indian Airlines and Air India at Delhi, Bombay or any other place as required for the same and will move to Delhi at the earliest and Alok Singh would look after the finance and marketing part at Durgapur, Kolkata, Bokaro and other places. It was further suggested by Alok Singh that after preliminary survey in their respective fields the informant and Alok Singh would visit Port Blair to evaluate the ground realities and would seek support from the Andaman administration. On 26.6.2004, the informant sent a letter to Adete Lahere accepting the terms for joining the post of Director and requested for sending the appointment letter. On 28.6.2004, the informant wrote a letter to Adete Lahere informing her of his visit to Port Blair on 30.6.2004 and requested to keep his appointment letter ready along with the final reports pertaining to the Kolkata Company. It is said that the informant and Alok Singh visited Port Blair and held an emergency meeting with the Joint Director and Director, Tourism, Directorate of Information Publicity and Tourism Andaman and Niccobar Administration, Port Blair as also the Chief Secretary, Andaman and Niccobar Administration respectively on 2.7.2004 and 5.7.2004.

(3.) THE submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that it would be apparent from perusal of the materials available on record that the present case had been filed by suppressing material facts by the informant with the sole intention of putting the petitioner and his wife in peril. It was submitted that the informant had filed forged and fabricated letters using the tricks of scanning and computer as the informant was carrying on business of printing and selling books at Bangalore. It is also submitted that although the petitioners have no house in Patna, a fabricated address had been given to bring the case within the ambit of Patna Court. In this connection, it was submitted that in the year 2003 the informant contacted petitioner No. 1 and with ulterior motive selected him as franchisee for West Bengal for 1.5.2003 to 30.10.2003 and subsequent thereto the informant took loan of Rs. 4, 00,000/- from petitioner No. 1 and impressed the petitioners by paying back the entire amount by depositing the same in the account of the petitioner No. 1 at Bangalore. Thereafter the informant is said to have visited the office as also the residence of the petitioner at Kolkata on several occasions with the object of starting a joint business with the petitioner under the name and style of M/s. LTC Package and accordingly the complainant insisted upon the petitioners to purchase land and make arrangements for hotel accommodation in Government/Private Hotels, furnished flats as also arrangement for meals and hiring vehicles. It was also decided that the business would commence from the month of October, 2004. It is also said that the informant estimated that a plan of LTC passenger visiting Port Blair during October, 2004 to March, 2005 would approximately be Rs. 30,000/-and that each passenger would stay in Port Blair for at least five days on triple sharing basis and for that details were also furnished which eventually as per projection would fetch Rs. 2,50,00,000/- out of which 15% would be the profit which would amount to Rs. 36,50,000/- and it would be equally shared between the informant and petitioner No. 1. The informant also ensured and promised that the said project would be launched at the Travel and Tourism Fair to be held from 19th to 22nd August, 2004 at Netaji Indoor Stadium, Kolkata. A request was also made for investing Rs. 15, 00,000/- for starting the project and the informant insisted upon the petitioner No. 1 to invest 50% of capital of the said project which the petitioner refused because the company of the petitioner was pre-occupied with major projects. Further allurements were given to petitioner No. 1 and eventually he in good faith issued 8 post-dated cheques for Rs. 7, 50,000/- in the name of the informant and his dearest employee Mamta G. It is also submitted that the informant under false pretext obtained letterheads of the petitioner's Kolkata Company and created fictitious letter on the said letterheads and presented the same before the Indian Airlines Management and on coming to know of the same petitioner No. 1 called for an explanation from the informant. Other instances of alleged misdeeds of the informant were agitated including the informant having retained two of the cheques issued by petitioner No. 1 for dragging the petitioners to Court. It was also submitted that the petitioners had filed Complaint Petition No. 4083 of 2004 against the informant alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 380, 468, 469, 471, 504 and 506(11), IPC in which the informant had managed to secure bail. The petitioners had also filed Title Suit No. 383 of 2004.