Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 342 (JHR)

Dharam Singh Rajput v. State Of Bihar

2005-05-04

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2005
JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.8.1997 passed in C.P. Case No. 213/97, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhanbad took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, IPC. 2. Facts leading to the filing of this application are that the opposite party lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging, inter alia, therein that he was awarded a contract for a total sum of Rs. 6,96,575/-. It is further alleged that besides the said contract, on verbal instruction and assurance of the accused persons, the complainant had performed extra work to the tune of Rs. 3,73,801.83 paise. It is further alleged that payment of extra work, done on verbal instruction and assurance of accused persons, has not been paid. On the basis of complaint filed, an enquiry under Section 202, Cr PC was held and cognizance under Section 420, IPC was taken against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that even the allegations are taken to be correct in its entirety; no offence is made out under Section 420, IPC. It is further submitted that even if the allegations are taken to be correct, it will be a case of civil dispute, for which no criminal prosecution can be launched. The aforesaid criminal case has been lodged against the petitioners with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners because in no case, amount so claimed, can be paid to the complainant- respondent and this is nothing but a pressure tactics to pressurize the petitioners to pay the amount. It is further submitted that from the work order it will appear that petitioners asked to perform particular work and not the extra work. It is also submitted that at no point of time the complainant was asked to perform any extra work as alleged by him and complainant could not produce any document in support of the fact. It is further submitted that matter is otherwise, because complainant had not completed his work awarded to him, as a result of which the work, issued to him, was to be terminated by the company i.e. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Annexure 7). It is further submitted that matter is otherwise, because complainant had not completed his work awarded to him, as a result of which the work, issued to him, was to be terminated by the company i.e. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Annexure 7). It is also submitted that payment was to be made as per contract work done by him and from the complaint petition, it appears that complainant has been paid the amount and the complainant has also admitted this fact. Hence a prayer has been made to quash the proceeding. 4. Notice was served on the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 appeared through vakalatanama but at the time of hearing no body appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. However, learned APP for the State submitted that cognizance in the case has been taken after enquiry and at this stage there should not be any interference in the cognizance taken in the case. 5. From the materials on record, it appears that complainant- opposite party No. 2 had filed a complaint petition and thereafter an enquiry was held under Section 202, Cr PC and on the basis of evidence recorded during enquiry, cognizance was taken against the petitioner. From the facts alleged in the complaint petition, it appears that opposite party No. 2 has been paid the amount for the work, said to have been allotted to him by M/s. Bharat Coking Ltd., but allegation is that has been asked to do some extra, on the assurance that he will be paid the amount of extra work, but no proof of his doing extra work has been given. Further the allegation is in the nature of civil dispute and for this complainant-opposite party No. 2 should approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances because from the facts alleged, no case under Section 420, IPC is made out and there is no such allegation that for the extra, work which is alleged to have been performed by him on the assurance of the petitioners, amount was spent, and thereafter the said work was withdrawn by the petitioners and no payment has been made to the opposite party No. 2 complainant. Hence, no case under Section 420, IPC is made out and it is a dispute of civil nature, for which the complainant opposite party No. 2 should approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances. 6. In that view of the matter, this quashing application is allowed and the entire criminal proceeding including order dated 23.8.1997 passed in C.P. Case No. 213/97 are hereby quashed.