Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 835 (JHR)

Badri Prasad Bhartiya v. State of Jharkhand

2014-08-06

H.C.MISHRA

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant informant opposite party No. 2. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 6.9.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in G.R. No. 2223 of 1998, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in the said case. 3. It appears from the record that the Complaint Case No. 308 of 1998 was filed by the compliant informant opposite party No. 2 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in which, the petitioners were made accused Nos. 2 to 5, being the partners of M/s Premier Hard Coke, which was made accused No.1. There is allegation against the petitioners of making false and dishonest representation, inducing the complainant to become a partner in the said partnership firm, and on such inducement, it is alleged that the complainant paid in the year 1992, in all Rs. 4,35,000/- to the accused persons in different installments. It is alleged that subsequently, the complainant was also inducted in the said firm, but no separate partnership deed was executed, though the complainant had made several requests to the accused persons for the same. It is further alleged that suddenly the business was closed in the month of May 1993, but thereafter the money of the complainant was not refunded back. The complaint petition also shows that the complainant filed a Title Suit No. 75 of 1995 for realisation of the money from the petitioners. It is thereafter alleged in the complaint petition that the accused persons dishonestly created the forged documents, i.e., deed of agreement of Managing Agency by forging the signature of the complainant on 8.5.1992 which was attested on 9.5.192 and General Power of Attorney dated 16.6.1992 and an affidavit sworn by accused No. 2 by forging the signature of the complainant, and knowing full well that the aforesaid documents are forged ones, the same were used by filing before the Electricity Board and also before the Certificate Officer, Dhanbad, with a view to make the complainant solely responsible for all dues of the Government and Electricity Board and also to escape from their liabilities. With these allegations and claiming that thereby the offence is made out under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the complaint was filed. The said complaint was sent for institution of the police case, on the basis of which, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 130 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 2223 of 1998 was instituted. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet in the case and on the basis of charge sheet and the materials in the case dairy, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order as well as the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the dispute is of civil nature being arising out of business agreement between the parties. It is also submitted that the complaint petition would itself show that a title suit was also filed by the complainant which also supports the contention that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. Learned counsel further submits hat though there are allegations of forging the signatures of the complainant on some documents, but the said allegations are of the year 1992 itself, but the complaint was filed in the year 1988, without there being any explanation for such a long delay. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and the criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance cannot be sustained in the law. 5. Learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant informant opposite party No. 2 have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has pointed out from the complaint petition that there are specific allegations of forging the signatures of the complainant against the petitioners and it is submitted that these allegations have been found to be true during investigation of the case and accordingly, the cognizance has been rightly taken against the petitioners. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant learnt about the forgery upon getting the notice of the Certificate Officer where the forged signature of the complainant was used, but this is only a submission of learned counsel for the complainant and there is no such averment in the complaint petition. 6. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant learnt about the forgery upon getting the notice of the Certificate Officer where the forged signature of the complainant was used, but this is only a submission of learned counsel for the complainant and there is no such averment in the complaint petition. 6. From bare perusal of the complaint petition, it is apparent that there is nothing to explain the delay in filing the complaint case so belatedly. Even any counter affidavit has not been filed by the complainant opposite party No.2 explaining such delay. 7. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, I find nothing on the record to explain the inordinate delay of about six years in filing the complaint petition. There is allegation of committing the forgery in the year 1992, whereas the complaint petition was filed in the year 1998. This long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint petition supports the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The other allegations made in the complaint petition relate to purely civil dispute between the parties, inasmuch as, they relate to the alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the partnership business between the complainant and the accused petitioners as also the monetary claim of the complainant against the accused persons, for which, admittedly a title suit had already been filed against the petitioners. In my considered view, the long and unexplained delay in filing the complaint vitiates the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioners and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 6.9.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Nirsa P.S. Case No. 130 of 1998 corresponding to G.R. No. 2223 of 1998, as also the entire criminal proceeding in the said case against the petitioners, are hereby, quashed. 9. This application is accordingly, allowed.