RAJNISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for O.P. No. 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.4.2012, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No. 144/2009, whereby and whereunder the learned Principal Sessions Judge rejected the criminal revision application, which has been preferred against the order dated 4.5.2009 whereby a petition for discharge filed under Section 245 Cr.P.C., had been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the case of the complainant needs to be taken note of.

(3.) The case of the complainant as it appears from the complaint petition, is that one Girish Kumar Pandey (accused No. 1) had been running 'Osho Surati Meditation Centre' at Jamshedpur in a shop, which was allotted to him by TISCO. Girish Kumar Pandey was not able to run the said Centre on account of financial crunch and, therefore, when Girish Kumar Pandey and these two petitioners, approached the complainant, the complainant offered to sell that shop for a consideration amount of Rs. 37,500/-. When the complainant agreed to purchase that shop, an agreement was executed by Girish Kumar Pandey and received the money from the complainant. Thereupon, the complainant was put in possession of the shop in which he invested a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in purchasing articles for running the shop. Subsequently, petitioner No. 2 (accused No. 2), sold the shop to accused No. 4 Bhupal Singh by executing a sale deed for a consideration amount of Rs. 38,000/- and then ail the accused persons came to the shop of the complainant and removed all the articles, which he had kept in the shop and put the shop under lock. On such allegation, a complaint case was registered being complaint case C/1 No. 1164/2002, in which, after holding enquiry, cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners.