Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 463 (JHR)

Arvind Chandra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand

2016-03-11

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2016
ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 1443 of 2014, including the order dated 18.06.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 20.01.2015, by which, bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled and non-bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 14.07.2015, by which process under section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner. 3. A complaint case was instituted being Complaint Case No.1443 of 2014, in which it was alleged that an apartment was developed by the petitioner namely Leela Krishna Apartment at Sheopuri, Ratu Road, Ranchi, in which an amount of Rs.11,50,000/-was taken. It is alleged that a dispute arose in the year 2013 and the landlady filed a suit being Title Suit No.425 of 2013. Further allegation has been levelled that the complainant had demanded refund of Rs.11,50,000/- and after much persuasion, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the complainant and seven cheques were issued by the petitioner, which got dishonored. 4. Mr. Faiz ur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that separate criminal cases have been instituted by the complainant with respect to the cheques, which were dishonored. 5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is still ready and willing to return back the amount of Rs.11,50,000/- as well as Rs.1 lac, which was taken for expenses towards registration, to the complainant. 6. It has also been submitted that the complainant in spite of the agreement entered into on 8.12.2012 has not vacated the flat, which was to be handed over to one Smt. Leelawati Mishra, for which the petitioner is facing a title suit. 7. Learned counsel thus submits that the entire dispute is with respect to non fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the agreement and considering the said fact, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. 7. Learned counsel thus submits that the entire dispute is with respect to non fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the agreement and considering the said fact, the entire criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. It appears that the learned court below had cancelled the bail of the petitioner and had issued non-bailable warrant of arrest and accordingly the order dated 20.01.2015 as well as subsequent order dated 14.07.2015 is under challenge in the present application. 9. It further appears from the agreement dated 8.12.2012, which was entered into between the petitioner and the complainant, that the landlady-Leelawati Mishra was to be given 40% share of the flat in lieu of the land provided for construction of the apartment. It also appears that claiming himself to be a constituted power of attorney of Smt. Leelawati Mishra, the petitioner had executed a registered sale deed no. 3195 dated 19.02.2010 in favour of the second party. It also appears that a title suit was filed by Smt. Leelawati Mishra, in which the complainant as well as the petitioner were arrayed as defendants. The agreement referred to coupled with the allegations made in the complaint petition do suggest that the petitioner had fraudulently sold the flat to the complainant, which actually should have been handed over to the landlady. Moreover, in terms of the agreement dated 8.12.2012 various cheques were given to the complainant and the same got dishonored. In such circumstances, therefore, the petitioner cannot be absolved from his criminal liability to be punished under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and considering the said fact, the prayer made by the petitioner to quash the entire criminal proceeding is hereby rejected. 10. So far as the allegation with respect to cancellation of bail is concerned, it appears that the case was being fixed for explaining substance of accusation but the petitioner instead of putting in physical appearance had filed an application under section 317 Cr.P.C. and ultimately on 20.01.2015, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled. 10. So far as the allegation with respect to cancellation of bail is concerned, it appears that the case was being fixed for explaining substance of accusation but the petitioner instead of putting in physical appearance had filed an application under section 317 Cr.P.C. and ultimately on 20.01.2015, the bail of the petitioner was cancelled. From the order-sheet, it appears that there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner not to make himself physically present so that substance of accusation may be explained to him and in such circumstance, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Magistrate and therefore the order dated 20.01.2015 and subsequent order dated 14.07.2015, by which process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner, also does not require any interference. 11. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. Application dismissed.