IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P. No. 428 of 2016 -- 1. Rajendra Kumar Juneja @ Rajender Kumar 2. Vijay Kumr Juneja 3. Kanta Rani @ Kanta Juneja 4. Dhiraj Juneja .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rameshwar Mandal … Opposite Parties --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lili Sahay, A.P.P. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate --- Order No. 05 Dated 08th September 2016 Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Lili Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.
2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2015 including the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 385, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially a compliant case was instituted by the opposite party No. being Complaint Case No. 1828 of 2014 which was referred to the police u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for instituting an F.I.R. giving rise to Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 329 of 2014. The police after investigation submitted final form and on being noticed the opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition which was treated as complaint case. After conducting enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 385, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations which have been made in the complaint in that on 25.12.2011 an agreement was entered into between the accused and the complainant with respect to selling of a property of the petitioners and it was agreed upon that if the property is sold at a higher price then it had been decided between the parties that the amount of profit shall be paid to the complainant. The complainant had also agreed to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs as security to the accused persons. Allegation has been made that in terms of the agreement, the lands were sold at a higher price and when the complainant on 20.09.2014 went to demand 2. amount of profit and refund of the security amount, the same was not refunded by the accused persons and the accused persons had forcibly taken away the original agreement from the possession of the complainant and had taken his signature on blank sheets and had also given him threatening. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire dispute is civil in nature which relates to a monetary claim made by the complainant though according to learned counsel the said amount of profit has already been paid to the complainant which could be gathered from the agreement entered in between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No.
2. Learned counsel submits that no case of cheating is made out against the petitioners and so for as the offence u/s 385 I.P.C. is concerned, the same has been inserted only to making the offence look more serious. Learned counsel therefore submits that the complaint petition on the face of it reveals existence of civil dispute and therefore the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the subsequent agreement was never entered into between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2, with respect to making payment of the amount of profit and it is a disputed document, as the opposite party No. 2 was never a signatory to the said document. The allegation made in the complaint petition has been supported by all the witnesses in course of enquiry and apart from the fact that the amount of profit was never given to the complainant, he was threatened and the original agreement was forcibly snatched away from him. Learned counsel further submits that the trial is proceeding and is on the verge of closure. It has therefore been submitted that the present application is liable to be dismissed. The perusal of the complaint petition reveals that the dispute is only with respect to the non-returning of the amount of security deposit allegedly made by the complainant and non-payment of amount of profit for selling the land at a higher price than what was agreed upon. After investigation into the matter, final form was submitted by the police showing the case to be civil in nature and on protest cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Even if the documents which is being relied upon by the petitioner with respect to the payment of profit 3. amount and the existence of the same is strongly disputed by opposite party No. 2 is left aside, in such circumstances also there does not appear to be any criminal element present in the complaint so as to prosecute the present petitioners u/s 385, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The entire dispute is with respect to monetary claim made by the opposite party No. 2 upon the petitioners for which the opposite party No. 2 has appropriate civil remedy. As regards the offence with respect to Section 385 I.P.C. is concerned, the same apparently seems to have been inserted only to make the offences graver. In view of the fact that the entire allegation made in the complaint petition at best can invite civil consequences and as such continuation of the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of court. Accordingly in view of what has been discussed above, this application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of 2015 including the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable u/s 385, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside. MK (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)