Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1134 (PAT)

Manoj Kumar Sah v. State Of Bihar

2006-11-28

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.PP for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 2.8.2006 passed by Sri B.K. Chaudhary, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 822(C) of 2006 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate has found a prima facie case under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code to have been made out against the petitioner. 3. According to the prosecution case the complainant Amit Anand Kumar, is the Proprietor of M/s J.M.D. Computech having its Office at G/5 Abhilasha Apartment, 176 Patliputra Colony which he had taken on rent from Manoj Kumar Sah, petitioner, herein from July, 2004 and as such he had developed intimacy with the said Manoj Kumar Sah. It is said that on 10.7.2005 the complainant met with a severe accident as a result of which he was hospitalised for long time and eventually around in December, 2005 or January, 2006 when he was able to move around and when he entered into contract with those Companies for whom he used to work he came to know that a similar business was being run by Manoj Kumar Sah owner of the Flat in which his office was located run by Manoj Kumar Sah who had opened another account in the name of M/s J.M.D. Computech and posed to be the Proprietor of the said Company. He had been working for those Companies with whom the complainant had got work orders and the accused also took payment during the pendency of illness of the complainant through cheque and encashed the same. It is further said that the complainant asked accused no.1, i.e. petitioner herein, to send the statement of income and expenses regarding the pending works during the period of his hospitalisation which was duly sent through E-Male and from the said message it came to light with that accused no.1 had misappropriated his money in his account. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of the Firm running in the name and style of M/s J.M.D. Computech and its Office situated at G/5 Abhilasha Apartment, 176 Patliputra Colony, Patna and that his Firm was registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, bearing Registration No. PT 57011. It. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he is the proprietor of the Firm running in the name and style of M/s J.M.D. Computech and its Office situated at G/5 Abhilasha Apartment, 176 Patliputra Colony, Patna and that his Firm was registered under the Shops and Establishment Act, bearing Registration No. PT 57011. It. has also been submitted that the petitioner was contractor and vendor of several Companies including Airtel, TATA Tele Service Ltd. and after getting appointment letter issued from the said Companies the petitioner received work order. It is also alleged that it was the complainant who misappropriated a huge amount of Rs. 4.50 lacs of the petitioners Firm and for the said offence a legal notice had been sent to the complainant on 21.4.2006. It has also been submitted that later on the petitioner came to know that the complainant had opened a firm in the same name and style of M/s J.M.D. Computech and had obtained Registration No. PT 51652 dated 14.2.2003 under the Shops and Establishment Act. It is apparent that the complainant had committed fraud with the petitioner with a view to defraud the petitioner of huge sum of money. It has further been submitted that the petitioner herein had filed a Complaint Case No. 1275(C)/06 in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna against the complainant wherein cognizance was taken on 7.7.2006 under Sections 323, 380, 427, 420, 468, 471 and 504 of the I.P.C. 5. It appears that the complaint case filed by the complainant was earlier in time than the complaint filed by the petitioner herein. It is also apparent that both the parties are claiming of the other counter party having misappropriated their funds. It is apparent from the order taking cognizance that there are sufficient materials on record full details whereof have been incorporated in the order aforesaid to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner herein and summons have already been directed to be issued. 6. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case I do not find any irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant case is dismissed.