TAHER ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Shruti Shrestha, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

(2.) The prayer in the petition is made for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dtd. 22/6/2016 arising out of Complaint Case No.581 of 2016, pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur.

(3.) The complaint case has been filed alleging therein that the complainant is a partnership firm and is engaged in building construction and development work. The accused persons have 34 kathas of land in Bankura situated in Mouza Demuarari, Gopinathpur (West Bengal) approached the complainant at its Jamshedpur office to develop the aforesaid land and the complainant agreed for the same. Both the parties entered into a development agreement on 3/10/2013 and as per the agreement, Rs.10,00,000.00 was paid to the accused persons as an advance amount. It was further alleged that the complainant paid Rs.6,07,936.00 to the accused persons for other works like building map, site plant fee, development fee, labour cess building plan fee etc. Substantial work was done thereafter by the complainant on the said land, but the development agreement dtd. 3/10/2013 got terminated with the consent of both the parties and it was agreed that the accused persons shall return the advance of amount of Rs.10,00,000.00 and Rs.6,07,936.00 and agreement was executed by the accused persons for returning Rs.6,07,936.00 to the complainant if the same building plan No.324/b dtd. 17/1/2014 passed by Bankura Municipality is used by the accused persons for further development of the aforesaid land. In December, 2015, the complainant came to know that the accused persons had made agreement with some other builder to develop the aforesaid land and have started work upon the land, but refused to pay the balance amount of Rs.6,07,936.00 to the complainant and, hence, they have cheated the complainant and misappropriated the money of the complainant for their own use.