MD ZIAUDDIN AHMAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bharat Kumar and counsel for the State Mrs. Sadhna Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for Opposite Party no. 2, Mr. Munna Lal Yadav.

(2.) The present application has been preferred for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 02.01.2015 passed by learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in connection with Complaint case No. 698 of 2014 for the offence alleged under sections 323, 420 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, so far quo the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of cognizance and continuation of criminal proceeding is bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on the basis of a complaint petition filed by Yamuna Yadav, Opposite Party No. 2, before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma against Baleshwar Yadav (own brother of the complainant) and the Manager of A.T.C Telecom Corporation Limited through authorized signatory Md. Ziauddin Ahmed (petitioner), Sunny Grand, Jagdeo Path More, Bailey Road, Patna-14, stating therein that accused no. 1, Baleshwar Yadav is own brother of the complainant and complainant is by profession a driver, who use to remain out of house and taking benefit of all these, the accused has always tried to cause loss to the complainant. The complainant has further stated that in the year 2008, he met with an accident and entire management of cash was handed over to his younger brother i.e. accused no. 1 (Baleshwar Yadav), who has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also kept four pieces of cheque of the Bank of India, Branch Indarwa. Later on accused no. 1 Baleshwar Yadav has committed fraud by sending a legal notice to the complainant regarding bouncing of cheque of Rs. 45,000/- though the said account of the complainant was closed since 2013. The complainant has further stated that in the year, 2011 in connivance with the other accused persons, the land purchased by the complainant through deed, situated at khata no. 4, plot no. 1481 area- four decimal has been let off on rent to A.T.C. Tower Company for installation of tower and no rent is being paid to the complainant rather the accused persons are demanding Rs. 75,000/- spent in paying illegal gratification. The complainant has further stated that from perusal of paragraph 6 of the deed, the purchase land belongs to all four brothers having equal shares. The complainant has alleged that he has demanded in writing and also orally his share of rent from A.T.C. company and also requested to settle the dispute with the accused, but accused no. 1 has categorically said to the complainant that for installation of tower, Rs. 75,000/- has been spent on illegal gratification, as such, till Rs. 70,000/- is paid to the accused Baleshwar Yadav, no further talk will be made on these issues. The complainant ultimately wrote all these things on affidavit vide no. 52 dated 03.11.2011 regarding illegal gratification of Rs. 70,000/- taken as bribe by the employees of the company, as accused no. 1 has disclosed the same also in the panchayat, that Rs. 70,000/- has been given to the company. Accused no. 1 has also threatened the complainant, that if he will raise all these issues, he will be falsely implicated in a case of damaging the tower. Thus, it is apparent that accused no. 1, Baleshwar Yadav in connivance with accused no. 2 Manager, A.T.C. company are not inclined to pay the rent of land on which aforesaid tower of the company has been installed, which amounts to fraud/cheating committed by accused persons. It is also stated by the complainant that when he met with an accident entire account of expenditure has been handed over to accused no. 1, Baleshwar Yadav. Taking benefit of the same, loan of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) has been taken on the L.I.C. policy of the complainant and Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) has been taken as loan from the other relatives on the pretext of treatment of the complainant. When complainant returned from hospital at that time accused no. 1, Baleshwar Yadav, has purchased a second hand truck (10 wheel truck) having registration no. JH12C- 3547 and thus complainant could know about the misappropriation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakh) of the complainant. The accused no. 1 Baleshwar Yadav, has orally promised him to return, which he has taken as loan but the same has not been returned till date.

(3.) The complainant has further stated that from his own earning, he has solemnized marriage of his two sisters and also constructed a house by spending Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lakh). However the accused no. 1, Baleshwar Yadav is not interested in giving share in the aforesaid house rather has forcefully possessed the house. It is also alleged by the complainant that after creating such situation, the accused no. 1 Baleshwar Yadav oftenly abused the complainant in filthy language and also becomes aggressive to assault him. That panchayat has been convened several times but accused no. 1 Baleshwar Yadav is not obeying the decision of panchayat rather on the pretext of such panchayat decision, the accused started quarrelling and initiated a proceeding against the complainant under Section 107 of the CrPC which is pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is alleged that on 29.07.2014 at around 7.30 P.M., the complainant was scuffled in the way and entered into the house along with the complainant, broke the lock of the box of complainant's wife and stolen Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) cash, ornaments and some papers worth Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand). The complainant went to the police station and apprised the Officerin-Charge about the occurrence, who directed him to file complaint case in the Court, as such the present complaint petition has been filed.