Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1083 (PAT)

Suresh Prasad v. State of Bihar

2007-07-06

body2007
ORDER Heard Sri Din Sandhu Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. Although O.P. No. 2 had entered appearance by filing vakalatnama, but none appeared to contest the application at the time of hearing. 2. Through this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the three petitioners who have been impleaded as accused Complaint Case No. 1997(C) of 2002 have questioned the validity of order dated 13.2.2006 passed by Sri SK Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has framed charges under Sections 406, 420 and 504 I.P.C. against the petitioners. 3. One Judagi Sharma, O.P. No. 2 herein, filed the aforesaid complaint petition inter alia stating that accused no. 1; Suresh Prasad, in the year 1987 had approached him and the family members of witness nos. 1 to 4 with a proposal to take their lands on lease for purposes of running a business of bricklin, passage of ingress and egress thereto and storage area for the materials. It is said that impressed by the terms of agreement and the assurances given by the accused persons, they handed over their agricultural lands to the accused persons on their lucrative offer to pay money and bricks in lieu of the lands leased out and the lease was for a period of six years i.e. 1988-89 to 1993-94. It is said that in pursuance thereof Kamta Singh, Ram Anuj Singh, Chandeshwar Singh, Rameshwar Singh and Raghunath Singh executed the lease deeds as got prepared by accused Suresh Prasad, in his favour on the terms and conditions enshrined therein which the lessors did not care to peruse before affixing their signatures in execution. However, it is alleged that from the very first year the accused persons started defaulting in performing their part of the agreement and land rent and promised number of brick as per agreement were not given and after closing their business the accused persons indulged in removing their materials surreptitiously in an effort to deprive the lessors of their bona fide dues under a planned conspiracy and in connivance with the local police. It is said that when pressure was exerted by the lessors for payment of their legitimate dues a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was Jot initiated with the help of the police against the lessors. It is said that when pressure was exerted by the lessors for payment of their legitimate dues a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was Jot initiated with the help of the police against the lessors. It was claimed that the accused persons had committed the offence of cheating by means of false and fraudulent assurances and promise. 4. The short point submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that it would appear from the allegations in the complaint petition that it was clear that the grievance of the complainant was the non-fulfillment of the terms of the agreement by the lessee, namely, the petitioners herein and does not disclose any criminal offence. As such the prosecution of the petitioners by the criminal court was an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Having given my anxious thought$ to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the allegation contained in the complaint petition, I am sanguine that it does not disclose any ingredient of any criminal offence and that the case has been filed with the clear intention of recovery of the land rent and other benefits accruing to the lessors under the terms and conditions of the lease deeds/agreement. It is by now well settled that the criminal forum should not be used to settle civil dispute. Apparently, this appears to be a clear case of misuse of the process of the Court. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order framing charge is hereby quashed and the application is allowed.