Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 157 (PAT)

Prakash Chand Jain v. State Of Bihar

2000-01-28

ANIL KUMAR SINHA

body2000
Judgment Anil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The present application has been filed against the order dated 15.12.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, in GR case No. 43/97 whereby he rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them from the offences of the case and while discharging the petitioners from the offences under Sections 406 and 467, I.P.C., ordered that there are sufficient materials on record against the petitioners to frame charge under Sections 420/468/34, I.P.C. 3. The admitted factual position is that the petitioners who were the tenant occupying the godown premises of the opposite party No. 2 evicted his godoivn and the arrears of the rent amounting to Rs. 20,000/- has also been paid to the complainant-opposite party No. 2 in terms of the order dated 11.8.1997 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3981 of 1997 (R). On payment of the sum of Rs. 20,000/-, a Bench of this Court by its order dated 20.8.1997 passed order to the effect that after the final form is submitted the petitioners will be at liberty to file a petition for discharge, which shall be considered taking a lenient view having regard to the fact that the amount involved has already been paid to the complainant. The petitioner then filed Cr... Misc. No. 10525 of 1998 (R) for quashing the entire criminal proceeding after the payment of the sum of Rs. 20,000/- but his application was dismissed with the observation that the petitioners may make fresh application before the trail Court for discharge in terms of the order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3981 of 1997 (R) and appropriate order shall be passed by the Court keeping in view of the observation made in Cr. Misc. No. 3981 of 1997 (R). Pursuant to the orders passed in the aforementioned cases the petitioners filed a petition for their discharge but the learned Court below passed the impugned order in the manner stated above. 4. In view of the allegations in the FIR, there does not appear any element of forgery so as to make out the offence under Section 468, IPC and Section 420, IPC is compoundable in nature. So, when the petitioner has already paid the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the O.P. No. 2, his grievance must have been redressed. 4. In view of the allegations in the FIR, there does not appear any element of forgery so as to make out the offence under Section 468, IPC and Section 420, IPC is compoundable in nature. So, when the petitioner has already paid the sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the O.P. No. 2, his grievance must have been redressed. It was for this reason that this Court repeatedly observed in the aforesaid Cr Misc case No. 3981 of 1997 (R) and 10525 of 1998 (R) that the Court below should take a lenient view when the petitioners file a petition for their discharge from the case. Certainly, by giving such direction it was never intended that the Court should frame charge taking technical view and should consider the subsequent development which took place after the institution of the case, meaning thereby that when the case related to the non-payment of rent amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and the petitioners have already paid that amount in terms of the orders passed by this Court, the Court should not have taken technical view in the matter. The Court also failed to take into consideration as to whether the allegations regarding the non- payment of rent amounting to Rs. 20,000/- was a civil liability or not. The facts and circumstances of the case disclose that the petitioner No. 1 had issued a cheque of Rs. 20,000/-to the O.R No. 2 and as there was some mistake in the date the petitioner corrected the same and the date was changed from 28.11.1995 to 1.12.1996, which was accepted by the complainant-opposite party No. 2, who deposited the cheque in his bank on 3.12.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cheque dated 1.12.1996 was never stopped by the petitioners and the cheque was not dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the petitioners and the petitioners had suffered huge loss to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- and they were insisting the complainant to make good his loss and the dispute was not resolved and so, the payment of the cheque was stopped by the petitioner. Hence, it was a case of civil liability and there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioners to cheat the complainant but the learned Court below did not consider this aspect of the matter and took cognizance in the case in a mechanical manner. Hence, it was a case of civil liability and there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioners to cheat the complainant but the learned Court below did not consider this aspect of the matter and took cognizance in the case in a mechanical manner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and the circumstances of the case the order dated 15.12.1999 passed in GR Case No. 43/97 by the learned Court below is hereby set aside the matter is remitted back to the Court below to pass afresh order in accordance with law taking a lenient view in the matter as observed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 3981 of 1997 (R) and Cr Misc No. 10525 of 1998 (R). The Court below is directed to consider as to whether it is a case of civil nature or not and in view of the fact that the amount has been paid to full satisfaction of the complainant-opposite party No. 2, no further action need be taken against the petitioners which will be nothing but an exercise in futile and unnecessarily wastage of the time of Court. 6. With this observation/direction, this application stands disposed of.