RUNGTA MINES LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 19/3/2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II Chaibasa in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.326 of 2020 (arising out of A.B.P. No.53 of 2020) in connection with Sadar P.S.Case No.44/2019 (corresponding to G.R.Case No.620/2020), whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for cancellation of the bail bond of the O.P.No.2 was rejected, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa.

(2.) Mr. Indrajit Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint case has been filed being Complaint Case No.32 of 2019 by the petitioner alleging therein commission of offences under Sec. 406 and 420 IPC, interalia, for the reason that accused dishonestly induced the petitioner to pay sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 in discharge of the petitioner's obligation under a land facilitation agreement and even after receipt of the same the accused did not perform his part as he had no intention to perform his obligations from the very beginning. He further submits that dispute in question has been referred to the mediation Centre at DLSA, Dhanbad and in the mediation both the parties have arrived at compromise and as per the terms and conditions of such settlement it has been submitted that Rs.8.00 lakh will be refunded by the O.P.No.2 and Rs.2.00 lakh has already been paid and the remaining Rs.6.00 lakh was required to be refunded in terms of the agreement in view of paragraph no.3 of the said settlement and submits that based on this settlement the learned court has granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that however apart from Rs.2.00 lakh further EMI as agreed between the parties have not been paid by the O.P.No.2 and for that non-compliance, the petitioner filed petition which was rejected by the learned court by order dtd. 19/3/2021. He submits that once the agreement has been entered into between the parties before the mediation centre it was expected to fulfill the terms and based on which the anticipatory bail has been granted. He relied in the case of Union Bank of India v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (Cr.M.P.No.1285 of 2009), paragraph no.5 of the said judgment is quoted below:

(3.) Relying on this judgment he submits that in this case also the terms and the conditions has not been fulfilled that the concerned court has cancelled the bail.