PANKAJ KUMAR DANGI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Prosecution as also learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2012 passed by Sri F. Kirmani, learned Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, in Gomia P.S. Case No. 90 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 715 of 2009, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the Court below.

(2.) The petitioner has been made accused in Gomia P.S. Case No. 90 of 2009 corresponding to G.R. No. 715 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was instituted on the basis of the complaint case filed by the complainant opposite party No. 2, alleging that the complainant had purchased a tractor and hydraulic trailer from the accused, for which, the money was paid, but the hydraulic trailer was never supplied to the complainant. The complaint was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, the case was instituted and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and cognizance was also taken against him. The petitioner, thereafter, filed his application for discharge under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. taking the point that it was a case of agreement between the parties and the case was civil in nature and accordingly, the criminal case was not maintainable. The said application has been rejected by the Court below taking into consideration the decision of this Court, wherein it has been held that if in the given transaction, the case of both the natures, i.e., civil as also criminal, is made out, the criminal offence cannot be quashed. On the basis of the materials on record, the learned Court below found that there were materials against the petitioner for framing the charge under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and has accordingly, rejected the application of the petitioner for discharge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and this is a case of purely civil in nature as this is a case arising out of business transaction and even if the allegation against the petitioner is accepted, the complainant has civil remedy. Learned counsel has accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.