Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 775 (PAT)

Ravi Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-07-14

ASHUTOSH KUMAR

body2014
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance dated 20th of September, 1999 passed in Complaint Case No. 1037 (c) of 1999 whereby cognizance has been taken against them under Sections 420 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Opposite Party No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners were old clients of the complainant- opposite party no. 2 who worked as a Stock Exchange Broker. It is alleged by him that despite his insistence, the petitioners entered into speculative transactions leading to losses. Some of such losses were saddled on the complainant. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was instituted. After enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken under Sections 420 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 4. From a bare perusal of the complaint, it would appear that no case under Sections, 420 or 120 (B) of the Indian Penal can, at all, be said to have been made out as the only allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners indulged in speculative transactions leading to losses. This was done by the petitioners despite the insistence of the complainant not to indulge in such speculative business. The complaint does not make it clear as to how the losses incurred could be saddled on him. The complaint, on a plain reading, is very vague and does not delineate the commission of any offence whatsoever. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this application was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, restoration application was filed and notice was issued to opposite party no. 2. Pursuant to such notice, opposite party no. 2 appeared before the Court and disclosed that he would have no objection if the case is restored to its original file as that time would be utilized for the parties to enter into compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioners now, submits that the matter has otherwise been compounded as well. 6. Nobody appears on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2. 7. No useful purpose would be served now to keep this proceeding pending as against the petitioners. The order taking cognizance is, therefore, set aside. The application is allowed. ?