Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 11 (PAT)

Srawan Kumar Himatsingka v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-06

A.K.SINHA

body2000
Judgment A.K.Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.8.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No. 162 of 1997, arising out of Complaint Case No. 504 of 1996, by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance in the case against the accused petitioners under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The admitted position is that the complainant Leela Devi entered into a hire-purchase agreement with Ideal Financing Corporation Limited in respect of a truck bearing registration No. BR-16C-1295 and the complainant agreed to pay 23 equal monthly instalments @ Rs. 14,380/- except the first instalment, which was of Rs. 14,557/-. The complainant claimed that the entire dues under the hire-purchase agreement was paid by her and, therefore, the husband of the complainant went to the office of accused No. 3 and requested him to issue no objection certificate so that the vehicle may be registered in the name of the complainant, which was avoided by the accused No. 3, the Branch Manager of Ideal Financing Corporation Ltd. Company and the complainant received a letter dated 18.7.1996 by which a further sum of Rs. 40,410/- was demanded from the complainant latest by 10.8.1996. According to the complainant, this demand of Rs. 40,410/- was not legal and the complainant was not bound to pay the same. Thereafter, a Lawyers notice was sent to accused No. 1 by which he was requested to withdraw the demand notice of Rs. 40,410/- but her request was not acceded to. It was, therefore, alleged that the accused-persons, who are the petitioners here, conjointly and with fraudulent intention tried to deceive the complainant by compelling her to pay a sum of Rs. 40,410/- and, so, it was prayed that the accused-persons are liable to be prosecuted. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, sent the case to Bistupur for instituting an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing him to investigate the case and, accordingly, Bistupur P.S. Case No. 23 of 1997 dated 27.1.1997 under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted and after completing the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioners under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code, which has been challenged in the instant application. 5. 5. The learned counsel submitted at the very outset that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties outside the Court and a joint compromise petition has been entered into between the parties which has been filed by him today in the Court. It was submitted that the opposite party No. 2 Smt. Leela Devi has paid the amount in full as per the demand made by the petitioners vide letter dated 18.7.1996. 6. The recital of the joint compromise petition goes to show that in view of the compromise the parties do not want to prolong the case any further. It was, therefore, submitted that further proceeding in the case should be dropped in view of the compromise. 7. Apart from the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned order by which cognizance has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, deserved to be quashed because on the admitted facts of the case, no offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, inasmuch as, there was neither any ingredient of cheating nor deception nor any obligation on the part of the accused-persons, which may show that they were bound by any law or contract to issue no objection certificate without making full payment of the amount due from the complainant. The admitted position of the case is that the accused-petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 40,410/- on account of dues, which the complainant owed to the company and unless the amount was paid by the complainant, the petitioners were not at all bound to issue no objection certificate, which was demanded by the complainant without making payment of full amount. In any view of the matter, there was absolutely nothing to indicate that the petitioners intended to cheat or deceive the complainant for their wrongful gain and it is evident from the subsequent conduct of the complainant that the amount claimed by the petitioners were actually paid by the complainant and, thereafter, the petitioners issued no objection certificate to her. I find that there is much force in the submission and in the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am also of the view that no offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. I find that there is much force in the submission and in the facts and circumstances as stated above, I am also of the view that no offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. As such, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, was not justified in taking cognizance of the offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners on submission of charge-sheet by the police in a mechanical way without applying his mind to the facts as to whether the offence under Section 418 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out in the facts and circumstances of the case or not. Moreover, it is also the admitted case that the parties were bound by the terms of the hire-purchase agreement which clearly stipulated that any dispute or differences can be resolved through arbitration. The learned counsel rightly argued before me by relying on a case reported in 1979 SC 850 (Trilok Singh and others v. Satyadeo Tripathy,) and submitted that no criminal offence is made out even if the entire fact as contained in the complaint petition is accepted and at best it was a case of civil liability, for which the complainant should have knocked the door of the Civil Court and in such view of the matter also, the impugned order of taking cognizance is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. This argument is also well founded. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and in view of the facts and circumstances enumerated above, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 11.8.1997 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in G.R. Case No. 162 of 1997, whereby he took cognizance against the petitioners cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.8.1997 passed by the CJM, in G.R. Case No. 162 of 1997 is hereby quashed.