PRAKASH JAIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal Proceeding of Bariatu (Gonda) P. S. Case No. 47 of 2008 instituted under Sections 406/420/384/385 of the Indian Penal code against the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts giving rise this application are that the informant opposite party No. 2, Director of a Company named as M/s. Satyabhama Developers Pvt. Ltd lodged a case stating therein that the Company is engaged in developing land by constructing multi storied building. In course of time, one sri Prakash Jain (petitioner No. l) entered into an agreement along with other land owners whereby multi storied building over a piece of land was to be constructed and the petitioner No. l was to be given a flat measuring 1500 sq. ft. along with parking space which on being constructed was given to him 17. 1. 2002 and thereafter, he along with other land owners executed a deed of power of attorney in favour of Vikash agarwal under which Vikash Agarwal was authorized to sell other flats to intending purchaser but the petitioner No. 1 after taking possession of the flat and parking area cancelled the power of attorney and started putting illegal demand on telephone of Rs. 2 crore and even extended threat in the terms that unless the matter is compromised, he may not have right over the flat and if he does not come to his term, he will have to face dire consequences.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entire allegations made in the first information report are false and as a matter of fact, petitioner No. 1 along with other five land owners entered into an agreement on 23. 6. 1999 with M/s. Satyabhama Developers Pvt. Ltd. for construction of multi storied building. Subsequently, a joint power of attorney was executed by the land owners in favour of vikash Agarwal, son of opposite party No. 2 for the purpose of negotiating sale of the flat receiving money from them and to grant receipt and to deposit the same to the principal land owner and also to execute sale deed in favour of the purchasers but in violation of such stipulation, neither the amount was given nor due share in the built up area was given to the informant and therefore, two land holders, namely, Kailash chandra Agarwal and Sambhu Dayal agarwal revoked the power of attorney and subsequently, the petitioner also revoked the power of attorney on 4. 7. 2005 and such information regarding revocation was communicated to the opposite party No. 2 and even it was published in the newspaper but in spite of that, Vikash Agrawal along with surendra Kumar Agarwal, opposite party no. 2 executed a sale deed in favour of some of the purchasers transferring some of the flats though neither opposite party No. 2 nor his son Vikash had any authority to execute the registered sale deed.