DINESH KUMAR JALAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both the petitions, the facts and points raised are same and similar and the parties are also the same and therefore, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the SDJM Pakur in PCR Case No. 34/2006 and PCR Case No. 35/2006 respectively whereby, the learned SDJM Pakur rejected the petitions filed by the petitioner purported to be under Section 251, Cr. P.C. for discharge of the accused persons and for closing the prosecution.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the complainant being the owner of M/s. Ashoka Stone Works, though transferred the assets of the industry but the majority of the property being non -transferable and therefore, the petitioner/accused could not start and operate his business and there fore, he could not pay the rest of the amount as promised in the agreement. The matter ultimately reached to the Arbitrator and a consent letter dated 15.1.2007 was to be prepared in the name of the complainant by the petitioner allowing the complainant to sale the properties as his own property and to realise the agreemental value.