MATHURA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code). It has been filed for quashing the first information report lodged by opposite party no. 2 on 7-7-1989 before the officer-incharge Athmalgola Police station against the petitioners making out allegation for an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of which Baroh P. S. Case No. 215 of 1989 was registered.

(2.) The first information report in the aforesaid case is on the record. It has been lodged by opposite party no 2 against the present petitioners. In this first information report the allegation has been made of an offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It has been drawn up on the basis of a petition filed by opposite party no. 2 before the police. From the contents of this petition it would appear that in it a reference has been made to a petition dated 23-8-1989 filed before the police by Suman Kumar, the son of opposite party no. 2. The allegations made are that this Suman Kumar had advanced a sum of Rs. 7,600/- to one Ramserekha Singh for the purchase of coal out of which Rs. 1,800/- was returned and Rs. 5,800/- was outstanding Ramserekha Singh had given in writing to return this amount on 28 or 29th of June, 1989 to the person who will come with his endorsement to that effect. He however, did not keep this promise. Again on 28-6-1989 in the presence of the Officer-incharge of the Police station Ramserekha Singh had promised that he will return Rs. 3,000/- on 6-7-1989. Earlier also undertaking was given by him in presence of several others person. When, however, on 6-7-1989 Suman Kumar had gone to take back this amount it was not returned to him but Ramserekha Singh acknowledged this due in presence of the A. S. I. of the Police. Accordingly, the informant who happens to be the father of Suman Kumar had lodged this information before the police alleging that the petitioners do not intend to return this amount but are trying to delay any action on the part of the opposite party no. 2 on false pretext. A case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and the first information report was drawn up.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that this is a dispute of a civil nature and from the reading of the first information report it appears that no criminal liability has been alleged against the petitioners. The very statement in the first information report will make it clear that a sum of money was due to the son of the information a part of which was already returned and for the rest an undertaking was given and as such it has been contended that there is no allegation to show that any offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made out since the evidence of entrustment is missing and not a chit of paper has been produced. On these grounds, it has been contended that the first information report be quashed,