CHANCHAL KUMAR GONGOPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the State. Learned Counsel for the opposite has not appeared in this case in spite of repeated calls.

(2.) The Complainant-Nandini Modak had filed the complaint petition bearing C.P. Case No. 284 of 2000 against the Petitioners, Chanchal Kumar Gangopadhyay, Tripti Kumar Bose and Prabhat Kumar Gangopadhyay, alleging therein that there was an agreement between both the parties for sale of the house for which the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was also advanced to the Petitioners. It is further alleged that in course of making bank draft for rest of the consideration money, the Complainant had incurred a further loss of Rs. 4,000/-, but the accused persons refused to sell the house to the Complainant and even the amount advanced was not returned. On the said complaint, cognizance was taken, and by the impugned order dated 22.08.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 284 of 2000, the application filed under Section 245(i) Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge was rejected by the court. Hence, this revision.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that no criminal offence is made out against the Petitioners, from the facts narrated in the complaint petition inasmuch as, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature/but the Petitioners have been falsely and malafidely dragged into the criminal case. Learned Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Shankar Gopalika v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2005 10 SCC 336, as also in Murari Lal Gupta v. Gopi Singh, 2005 13 SCC 699, wherein it has been held that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating unless there was any deception played at the very inception. The criminal proceeding against the accused persons have been quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said ground.