JAIDEO PRASAD MINDA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioners, in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have sought for quashment of the order of cognizance dated 12.05.2014 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna found sufficient material against the petitioners and others to proceed with the trial under Sections 406 and 417 I.P.C. in Complaint Case No.2442(C) of 2013 brought by opposite party No.2.

(3.) The challenge is on the ground that (a)no part of cause of action took place within territorial jurisdiction of the Patna Court. Hence, the impugned order has been passed by a court having no jurisdiction over the subject matter.(b)The dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement and for violation of the terms and conditions of agreement, there is arbitration clause in the agreement itself and the whole allegation revolves around compliance and non-compliance of the agreement. Therefore, the dispute is purely of civil nature and the criminal prosecution has maliciously instituted to wreak vengeance. (c) The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 417 of the I.P.C. namely, entrustment of property to the petitioners to constitute offence under Section 406 I.P.C. or dishonest and fraudulent intention on the part of the petitioners at the inception of the agreement to constitute offences of cheating under Section 415 I.P.C. are completely lacking on bare perusal of the complaint petition. Hence, the criminal prosecution is an abuse of the process of the court.