Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 620 (JHR)

Gautam Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-03

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This matter was dismissed as infructuous on 29.03.2023 on the submission of the learned counsel for the State that P.C. Case No. 136 of 2014, pending in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella has already been disposed of. On receiving that order, a report of the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan was transmitted to the Registry of this Court, which has been placed on record, wherein, it has been disclosed that the said case is pending for recording of statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the said case is not disposed of. 2. In view of the said report, it appears that the said order was passed on wrong information of the State. 3. In view of the above, the order dated 29.03.2023 is recalled and W.P. (Cr.) No. 562 of 2015 is restored to its original file. 4. Further, the case is being heard on merit. 5. Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishi Chandan, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, learned counsel for the State. 6. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 01.07.2015, by which, summon has been issued to the petitioner for facing trial for the offence under Sections 420/34 in connection with P.C. Case No. 136 of 2014, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Seraikella. 7. The complainant has filed P.C. Case No. 136 of 2014 alleging therein that the complainant is the resident of Plot No 1655, Main Road, Shere-e-Punjab chowk, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Dist Seraikella-Kharsawan and the property in question which is the subject matter of this case is also situated at Adityapur. On 20.03.2014, in the daily news paper of “Prabhat Khabar.” one News was published for the bid through “E-Auction” by the Bank Of India, Telco Branch for a residential flat No. 5/2, fifth floor, D.S Tower, Adityapur, PO & P.S-Adityapur, District-Seraikella-Kharsawan, within the State of Jharkhand and subsequently after going through the above said news the complainant approached the said Bank of India and had successfully taken part in the bid schedule to be held on 30.04.2014. It was further alleged that prior to the bid, the complainant visited the Bank Of India, Telco Branch and requested to the accused No. 2 to show the relevant papers or documents of the flat in question but he was informed by the accused No2, that the documents would be showed after the bid only according to the norms of bid. It was also alleged that on 21.04.2014, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs 2,38,000/-through NEFT by his banker Allahabad Bank, Adityapur Branch from his S.B. Account No. 50024182162 to the Bank of India, Telco Branch and the payment was made in the account No. 450190200000031 of The Bank Of India. On 30.04.2014 after the bid the complainant was announced to be the successful bidder and the next owner of the above said flat, at that time the complainant requested the accused No. 2 to show the relevant documents of the flat, but the accused no. 2 advised the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.5,94,750/-and only after that they would show the documents and immediately after that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.5,94,750/-only on the same day of the bid i.e. on 30.04.2014 and at that time he was advised to pay the rest consideration amount of Rs. 15,46,250/-only by the 15th May 2014 and had further informed and advised from Bank side that if the rest balance amount would not be paid within the stipulated period, then his amount would be forfeited but the Bank officials also accused No. 2 had not shown the documents and suggested the Complainant to come another day. It was further alleged that on the very same day on 30.04.2014, the complainant requested the bank officials to provide the Xerox copy of the relevant documents of the above said flat No. 5/2 for the proper enquiry about the right, title and possession but he was advised by the accused no 2 and other bank officials to come another day. On several occasions, the complainant went to the Bank of India, Telco Branch and requested the accused No. 2 and his official staff's to provide the documents but in all the time he was misguided by the bank side with pretext that the documents were in their Zonal branch of Bistupur, Jamshedpur, but when the complainant meet with one Mr. On several occasions, the complainant went to the Bank of India, Telco Branch and requested the accused No. 2 and his official staff's to provide the documents but in all the time he was misguided by the bank side with pretext that the documents were in their Zonal branch of Bistupur, Jamshedpur, but when the complainant meet with one Mr. R.C. Das the Deputy G.M. of Bank Of India, Zonal Branch, Bistupur, he also harassed the complainant and when the complainant in several time approached him then he said Mr. R.C. Das denied and stated that no such document except the Sale Deed, Sale confirmation letter, Affidavit cum Declaration and indemnity Bond is lying with the Zonal Branch and ultimately on 05.05.2014 the Bank Officials have provided the Sale Deed, sale confirmation letter, Affidavit cum Declaration and indemnity Bond, but had not provided the drawing (naksha) and Sanctioned plan approved by the competent authority i.e. AIADA OR ANAC which is quiet necessary document for the smooth habitable residing and peaceful physical possession over the flat in question. 8. Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted as Chief Manager of Bank of India, Telco Town Branch, Jamshedpur. He further submits that for the same cause of action, civil proceeding is also initiated by the complainant. On these grounds, he submits that even if the case is at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. to allow to continue the criminal proceeding will amount to abuse of process of law. 9. Mr. Rishi Chandan, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 submits that witnesses have already been examined and the case is ready at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and this case is fit to be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds in the final argument. 10. Mr. Rishi Raj Verma, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned court has rightly passed the impugned order. 11. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. Considering the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that there is no averment in this petition that civil proceeding is also initiated with regard to the dispute in question. 11. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record. Considering the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that there is no averment in this petition that civil proceeding is also initiated with regard to the dispute in question. Further, the case is ready at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on this ground, the petitioner can take all the grounds in the final argument. The trial is at fag end stage. No document has been annexed to that effect. The trial has already been proceeded. 12. In view of the above facts, this petition is being disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take all the grounds in the final argument before the learned trial court. 13. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.