Mritunjay Chaturvedi vs The State of Bihar and Another

P.K. Deb, J.—This petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the whole criminal proceedings including the order dated 18.6.1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur in Complaint Case No. 696 of 1999 whereby cognizance has been taken against the Petitioner along with other accused persons under Sections 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Opposite Party No. 2 filed the above mentioned complaint case alleging that he has no son besides two daughters alone who are residing at Kanpur. On being approached by this Petitioner along with S.K. Sharma, Ramesh Bhagania and Mrs. Shashi Gupta, the complainant had agreed to purchase a flat at Kanpur and the accused persons including the Petitioner had posed themselves to be engaged in the business of building flats. According to the complainant, he paid huge amount towards the consideration of the flat in the name of accused No. 3. Mrs. Shashi Gupta and according to him practically all amounts towards the price of the ftat to the tune of Rs. 7,70,000/- had been paid by the complainant but afterwards when the flat was ready for delivery, the saree was sold to some others cheating the complainant. He lodged the complaint petition with such allegations and also it appears that the complainant had filed a suit against the accused persons too. In support of the complaint in the process of enquiry u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements of the witnesses have been recorded and on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint petition being supported by the witnesses cognizance has been taken against all the accused persons including the Petitioner under Sections 420/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

The Petitioner''s contention is that he is only a contractor engaged for the purpose of building of the flat in question. He had no contract or agreement with the complainant and he cannot in any way be (sic--liable) for the criminal liability. The second submission is that the flat is situated at Kanpur and as such Muzaffarpur Court has got no jurisdiction. The third contention is that the complainant has already compromised with the main accused namely Mrs. Shashi Gupta to whom allegations were there of making payment when Mrs. Shashi Gupta had repaid Rs. 3.30 lacs to the complainant. On the first contention it is nowhere there up till now on the records that the Petitioner is only an engaged contractor by the other accused persons and that he was not in the deal between the complainant and the other accused persons, rather the different paragraphs of the complaint petition and the statements of the witnesses recorded indicate that the Petitioner was all along with other accused persons who had come to take money from the complainant at Muzaffar-pur and that he also actively participated in the agreement being made with the complainant. The second contention has got not much force on the face of it as from the complaint and the evidence adduced, it is clear that the agreement was arrived at Muzaffarpur and payments also were made when the accused persons visited Muzaffarpur and draft was prepared for the purpose. Regarding the third contention, it appears that Mrs. Shashi Gupta filed a petition u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of immuning herself from appearing in the court in person and in that petition she stated that she had paid Rs. 3.50 lacs to the complainant and compromise has been arrived at. The court has not recorded any compromise rather allowed the petition u/s 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So it cannot be said that the compromise has already been arrived at between the main accused Mrs. Shashi Gupta and the complainant. On the face of the records and the materials available on the record at the time it cannot be said that the cognizance is bad in the eye of law. However, if the Petitioner''s contention is correct that he had no connection with the agreement being arrived at rather he was only an engaged contractor for building purpose, the same can only be raised at appropriate stage by the Petitioner before the court below. On the materials on record, I do not find that this petition has got any force and the cognizance taken by the learned court below can be interfered by the inherent jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition is thus rejected. Stay order passed earlier vide the order dated 22.11.2000 is hereby withdrawn.