SUMAN PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in complaint case no. 414 of 1994 including the order dated 29.4.1995 passed by the S.D.J.M., Bagaha, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and issued processes against the petitioners.

(2.) THE admitted position remains that the complainant, opposite party no. 2 is a cane -grower within the reserve area of the Sugar Factory in the name and style of Hari Nagar Sugar Mills. In the year 1991, the complainant had taken some loan through Hari Nagar Sugar Mills from the bank and money was deducted by Hari Nagar Sugar Mills towards the loan from the cane bieng supplied by the complainant to the sugar factory. According to the petition of the complainant, the said amount has been deducted and adjusted from the supply of the sugarcane by the sugar factory but the sugar factory, however, is showing the loan in the accounts itself, ft has further been stated that in the crushing season 1991 -92 about 2000 quintals of sugarcane has been damaged of the complainant because the sugar factory did not lift those sugarcane for the sugar mill. According to the complainant, he went many times but the petitioners, who happen to be office bearers of the sugar factory, have not paid heed to the complainant 'sgrievance regarding settlement of accounts. It has further been stated that although the accounts have not been settled up -til -now the sugar factory had also stopped the payment of the price of the sugarcane. The complainant has been examined on oath and after taking down statement of some of the witnesses during the course of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 406, 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code and processes were Shri Khirod Mahto Versus State Of Bihar issued.

(3.) I am not concerned with those law matters because, in my opinion, even if there is any offence under the said Act then also if some transactions attract some other provisions then there is no bar to include the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code also for the purpose of prosecution. In the present case practically no question of defalcation/embezzlement arises. Under the statute the Sugarcane Industry is to deduct the amount of loan for the purpose of depositing to the bank from the supply of the sugarcane and in that way it has done so. If in the account there is some dispute, the same can be redressed within the provisions of the Act itself as contemplated under Section 46 of the Act. But in no way Sections 406 and 409 of IPC can be attracted. Moreover, the question of attracting Section 420 also does not come in unless it can be shown that there was intentional duping from the side of the petitioners. If there is any negligence on the part of the petitioners in settling the accounts then the complainant can move before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances as stated earlier. But it appears that for mitigating the dispute between the parties an order was passed by a Bench of this Court to give details of the accounts to the complainant by the petitioners and the statement of accounts were also filed but some objections were raised on such accounts and then another order was passed on 3.1.1996 to file a detailed chart showing the date, month and year of the deposit made in the bank towards the loan form the money belonging -to the complainant. But, according to the counsel for the complainant -opposite party no. 2, up -til -now such accounts have not been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that practically no more accounts are necessary for the purpose but still it remains that the complainant has got every authority to know how his loan and its instalments are being paid by the Sugarcane factory. In that way, although the criminal proceeding as mentioned above is Shri Khirod Mahto Versus State Of Bihar nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court but this Court gives a direction to the petitioners to sit with the complainant within a period of two months next positively to settle down the accounts and if the complainant feels aggrieved with such accounts then he shall be at liberty to move before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.