Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 831 (PAT)

Rajesh Sikaria v. State of Bihar

2013-07-16

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
Judgment Anjana Prakash, J. The Petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 10.07.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3268(C) of 2005. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he was on business terms with the accused persons and when on 20.12.2003 a final statement of account was done it was found that a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs was to be paid by the Complainant to the accused. On condition that the entire outstanding in the market and medicines kept in godown or the Office of the accused would be the property of the Complainant and the Complainant would be entitled was to collect the outstanding dues from the market to sell the same he issued a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs in favour of the accused. Later on he found that in fact the accused persons were also withdrawing the medicines from the market in order to deprive him of the rightful dues. 3. It is submitted that indeed it is true that a final accounting was done on 20.12.2003 thereafter the Complainant handed over a cheque of Rs.10 Lakhs on condition that all stocks would be taken away by him. However, the Complainant showed his inability to do so in want of existing stocks and deficient storage space and, therefore, the accused agreed that they would deliver the stock as and when instructed by the Complainant. A final agreement to this effect was signed on 20.12.2003. 4. Thereafter, the Complainant never took away the stocks nor instructed for delivery of stocks. The cheques were also dishonoured on account of which the Petitioner filed Complaint Case No. 6163(C) of 2004 against the Complainant and the other director. When the Complainant moved an application for anticipatory bail in the Court below he offered that he was ready to make payment after final accounting. However, he never did so. It is in this background that the Petitioner submits that evidently the Complaint is completely false and deserves to be rejected. 5. Notices had been issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 but despite service of notice he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. However, he never did so. It is in this background that the Petitioner submits that evidently the Complaint is completely false and deserves to be rejected. 5. Notices had been issued to the Opposite Party No. 2 but despite service of notice he has chosen not to appear before this Court. 6. Considering the narrative in the Complaint Petition and the background facts, I am of the view that no criminal offence is made out in the facts of the case and, hence, the pendencey of the present prosecution would be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The application is, hence, allowed and the entire proceeding including the order of cognizance dated 10.07.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3268(C) of 2005 is, hereby, quashed. 7. However, the quashment of the present proceedings shall have no bearing on the civil litigations between the parties. Application allowed.