Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 891 (PAT)

Century Threads Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Bihar

2013-07-29

AKHILESH CHANDRA

body2013
Judgment Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and State. None turned up on behalf of private respondent no. 2, Ajay Kumar, and in spite of appearance no counter affidavit has been filed and also there was none to receive the copy of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on previous occasions. 2. This is an application seeking quashing of order of cognizance dated 20th December, 2010 under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code passed by Smt. Noor Sultana, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2592(C) of 2010 and also quashed the entire proceeding arising out of said complaint case. 3. As is evident by virtue of agreements the complainant was appointed Agent (consignment sale agent) respectively for Patna Zone consisting Patna Sadar, Patna City, Hajipur, Danapur, Gaya and Muzaffarpur and the petitioners have business of thread. As per the terms and conditions of agreement some amount, detailed in compliant petition, was paid to the petitioners by the complainant-respondent no. 2, but subsequently, some differences cropped up and the complainant was deny of usufruct and advance made by him. The legal notice was issued without any response hence the complaint case was filed. 4. The learned counsels present during the course of hearing pointed out Term No. – 21 in both the agreements indicating jurisdiction of competent court at Kolkata whenever any dispute between the parties with respect to such agreement arises. The next point, as pointed out, is with respect to concealment of payment by the petitioners through two difference cheques dated 03rd March, 2010 respectively for Rs.25,559/- and Rs.72,579/- in favour of the complainant company, but in the supplementary affidavit filed (Annexure-7 & 7A, the statement of bank account) it appears that the cheques have already been encashed and credited. 5. It is the main contention that the disputes between the parties, if any, relates to accounting and realization of any amount, if due, instead of taking due steps in competent civil court the complainant has preferred filing a complaint case invoking the jurisdiction of the criminal court, if any, offence being made out. And in support thereof the reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in cases between “Chandrabhushan Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.” (Cr. Misc. And in support thereof the reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in cases between “Chandrabhushan Prasad Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.” (Cr. Misc. No. 10751 of 2005 dated 16.11.2010) reported in “ 2011 (1) PLJR 935 ” and “Shri Malay Chatterji Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.” (Cr. Writ No. 793 of 2009 dated 05.04.2012) reported in “ 2012 (4) PLJR 59 ”, and the controversy in present application squarely covered by the ratio arrived at by this Court in cases “Chandrabhushan Prasad Sharma” and “Shri Malay Chatterji” (Supra). No criminal offence is made out and the complainant, if at all aggrieved, ought to have knocked the door of competent Civil Court. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order and the proceedings etc. are hereby quashed. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. Application allowed.