H.K.AKHAURI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for both the sides.This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 17.12.1999 passed by Sri A.K. Modi, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur in C-l Case No. 778 of 1999, whereby upon an enquiry in the complaint case, the Court below has found prima facie case against the petitioners under Sections 448, 384 and 506 of the I.P.C and has ordered for issuance of process against them. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in the said complaint case.

(2.) The facts of this case lie in a short compass. The complainant opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint case being Case No. 778 of 1999 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, against the petitioners stating therein that the complainant was engaged in the business of construction of multistoried buildings and one Mrs. A. Sita Sampat and Mr. Sampat Kumar (herein after referred to as 'Sampats') had booked one duplex with the complainant after paying an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards booking amount. Subsequently, the said Sampats canceled the booking of duplex and demanded their money back, which was not refunded by the complainant in view of the specific terms in the agreement against them. The said Sampats filed a case in the Consumer Protection Forum and the complainant had also filed a complaint case against them, in which, cognizance was taken against the said Sampats for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 323, 341, 387, 354, 109/34 of the I.P.C. The said Sampat Kumar happened to be an employee, working in TELCO Ltd. and the petitioners are the senior officials of TELCO Ltd. It is alleged that the said Sampat Kumar was the Personal Assistant of petitioner No. 1, H. K. Akhouri, whereas, the complainant's husband, namely, P. R. Narayan was also an employee in TELCO Ltd., the petitioner, H.K. Akhouri, being his controlling officer as well. It is alleged in the complaint petition that the petitioner, H. K. Akhouri pressurized the complainant and her husband to refund the money back to Sampats with interest and also to withdraw the criminal case filed by her. It is also alleged that the petitioner H. K. Akhouri had also expressed his desire to purchase one duplex from the complainant, for which, he was insisting to make a concession to the tune of Rs. 40,000/-, which was not accepted by the complainant and due to these reasons, the petitioners used to threaten [he complainant for dismissing her husband from service. There is allegation against the petitioners that on 30.8.1999 all the petitioners went to the house of the complainant, threatened the complainant to withdraw the said criminal case filed against Sampats and also to refund the amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest, failing which, the accused petitioners threatened the complainant with dire consequences. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed for the alleged offence committed by the petitioners under Sections 448, 384 and 506 of the I.P.C in the Court below.

(3.) The statement of the complainant was recorded on solemn affirmation at the stage of enquiry, wherein she has supported her case and she has also stated that the accused persons had issued charge-sheet against her husband. The complainant also examined two witnesses, her husband P. R. Narayan and one U. P. Barnwal, who was her employee, in the enquiry stage, in which they also supported the case. The husband of the complainant has stated in his evidence that on 30.8.1999 all the petitioners went to the house of the complainant and asked his wife to refund the money of Sampats and also to withdraw the case, failing which, they threatened to take action against this witness and they had also taken action against him. On the basis of the statement of the complainant recorded on solemn affirmation and the statements of the witnesses examined at the stage of enquiry, the Court below by order dated 17.12.1999 found the case prima facie against the petitioners and has ordered for issuance of summons, which has been challenged in the present application.