BABLU MITRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for quashing the cognizance order dated 8.12.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 1786 of 2006, whereby learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IT has been stated that only allegation against the petitioner is that the complainant has given a loan of Rs. 1,25,000/ -, required by the petitioner for treatment of his daughter, on the condition that on failure to return the amount within 4 -5 months, he would transfer his Maruti car to the complainant. It has been alleged that more than four months lapsed but the petitioner did not return the money and now it is found that the paper of the car, which was given to the complainant, is not genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire allegation is, thus, giving friendly loan to the petitioner by the complainant and not repaying the same by the petitioner. In that admitted position the dispute/controversy between the parties gives rise to a civil suit and the same does not constitute any penal offence much less as alleged in complaint petition. The criminal prosecution is wholly illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. On the plain reading of the complaint and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the Complainant is aggrieved due to non -payment of the amount by the petitioner within the stipulated time and not complying with the term of transferring Maruti car in his favour even after expiry of the agreed period. Even if the said allegations are taken at the face value the complainant is entitled to take recourse to legal remedy for recovery of the amount/enforcing the said agreement through the process of law, I find no criminal element in the said allegation which gives rise to a cause of action for instituting a suit or taking any other legal steps for enforcing the claim.