Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 272 (JHR)

Khitish Chandra Ghosh v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-15

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2004
ORDER Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.2.1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 419 of 1998 whereby and whereunder cognizance under Sections 402, 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. 2. Case of the petitioner is that O.P. No. 2 filed a complaint case bearing No. 419 of 1998 alleging therein O.P. No. 2 who is the Honorary Secretary of a Registered Society, wanted to purchase some land from the petitioner No. 1 and in pursuant to that, entered into an agreement on certain terms and conditions with petitioner No. 1 and in pursuant to the agreement, O.P. No. 2 gave Rs. 2,25,000/- to the petitioner No. 1. But inspite of receiving that much of amount, petitioner No. 1 did not execute sale deed in favour of the society and that is why this case has. been filed on the ground that from the very beginning, petitioner No. 1 wanted to cheat O.P. No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1, namely. Khitish Chandra Ghosh, has already died and this fact has come in the record of the High Court that he is dead. So far as the petitioner No. 2, namely, Savitri Ghosh, who is the wife of petitioner No. 1 is concerned, she is not at all involved in the case because she did not enter into any sort of agreement with the O.P. No. 2 and whatever amount, if any, was paid to her, as per S.A. by O.P. No. 2, that was paid on the instruction of the petitioner No. 1 Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner No. 2 being wife of the petitioner No. 1 was not concerned what amount was being paid to her husband. So no case is made out against the petitioner No. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that O.P. No. 2 had made allegation that he paid Rs. 2,25,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 who is now dead and at the same time, on instruction of petitioner No. 1, the money was handed over to his wife who is petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, she is not at all concerned with the case. 4. 2,25,000/- to the petitioner No. 1 who is now dead and at the same time, on instruction of petitioner No. 1, the money was handed over to his wife who is petitioner No. 2 and, therefore, she is not at all concerned with the case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that money has been paid to the petitioner No. 2, who is wife of the petitioner No. 1. 5. On perusal of the entire facts and materials brought on record. I do not find that any case is made out against the petitioner No. 2 and the petitioner No. 1 is dead. Further, this case has been filed for breach of agreement in the year 1998 whereas alleged breach of agreement took place in the year 1986, so the reason for delay of 12 years in lodging of the case, is best known to the O.P. No. 2. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the order dated 11.2.1999 is hereby quashed.