SALIL NARAYAN @ SAI NARAYAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner Is Apprehending His Arrest In Connection With Complaint Case No. 751 of 2015 for the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It Appears That Under Order Dated 07.02.2017, With The Consent Of The parties the matter was referred to the Secretary, JHALSA for mediation but the mediation has failed and the matter was to be heard on merit and accordingly, the same is hereby heard on merit.

(3.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the complainant filed the complaint which was sent to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C upon which F.I.R was lodged giving rise to Sector IV P.S. Case No. 187 of 2014 under sections 406/420/120B I.P.C against the petitioner and his firm but after investigation, police has submitted final form showing the case as civil dispute, thereafter on the protest, this complaint was lodged alleging therein that the firm of the complainant namely, M/s Metal Zone is engaged in the business of consultancy in various fields and one another firm namely M/s Akarshan Infra Developers (P) Ltd. through its Director namely Salil Narayan,i.e the petitioner approached the said firm of complainant regarding generation of business in Housing sector in Bokaro area with Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Co operative Society Ltd and thereafter, A.K. Singh the Chairman of Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Co operative Ltd has been contacted who has also shown his interest upon the proposal of the complainant and then due to efforts of the complainant, a meeting was fixed between the petitioner and A.K. Singh for the above purpose. It is alleged that it was raged by the petitioner that if the work order wold be granted for the said project under such condition, then he would pay an amount of Rs. 70.00 lakhs as an advance towards consultancy and business development charges and further, it was also agreed at his own that he would further make payment of 3% of the total work order value paid to him for the said project and in this regard, both the complainant and accused had entered into an agreement on 12.08.2013. It is further alleged that the petitioner refused to pay any amount in the light of agreement between both the sides on 12.08.2013, although several reminders were made for the same. On the basis of these allegations, the instant complaint case has been lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and it wrong to suggest that the petitioner has entered into agreement. Further, it has been submitted that before institution of this case, the complainant had filed a complaint on 01.08.2014, which was sent to the police station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C upon which F.I.R. being Sector IV P.S. Case No. 187 of 2014 under section 406, 420, 120B I.P.C was lodged against the petitioner and his firm but after investigation, police submitted final form showing the case as civil dispute, thereafter on the protest, this complaint was lodged. Further, it has been submitted that the contract between Bokaro Steel Officers Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi was executed only on L 1 Basis which makes it very clear that the said contract was given to the Akarshan Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi only because the company was the lowest bidder. Further, it has been submitted there is no question of favoritism from the complainant's company in case were the contract that is executed abides all the legal procedure. The demand of money on the basis of this agreement is just mere way of blackmailing the petitioner and his company. Further, it has been submitted that that as per the norms of the petitioner's company any agreement on behalf of the company is not valid till a resolution is passed by the company, thereby authorizing is a director to sign the agreement and in the present case there was no such resolution passed by the company. The complainant was pretty well aware about the complete fact. It has also been submitted that the case appears to be arising out of breach of contract which is a civil dispute but the instant case has been lodged only to harass the petitioner.