Patna High Court - Orders
Rajiv Pandey @ Rajiv Kumar Pandey & Anr vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 27 August, 2018
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1490 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2016 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
Rajiv Pandey @ Rajiv Kumar Pandey & Anr
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Mishra
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore (Ag)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 27-08-2018The petitioners, who are the builders, seek quashing of the subject F.I.R., namely, Shri Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016 dated 11.02.2016 instituted for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 & 34 of the I.P.C.
The sum and substance of the allegation in the F.I.R. is that despite the petitioners having received Rs. 10,00,00 /- (ten lakhs) and odd towards delivery of flats to the Opposite Party No. 6 and his relatives, the flats in question have not been delivered to the investors.
It has further been alleged that even after the passage of four years of Respondent No. 6 and others having paid money to the petitioners, neither the flats have been given nor there is any possibility of the flats being constructed / finished in near future. Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1490 of 2017(2) dt.27-08-2018 2/4 The further allegation in the F.I.R. is that under such circumstances, the petitioners are not even returning the amount to the investors.
The petitioners have a different story to narrate.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the construction activity started in right earnest. For a brief while, there was a stay on the construction of the aforesaid building because of a fictitious / frivolous complaint in the PRDA regarding the petitioners having made some deviations in the construction plan and having encroached upon a public land. The conclusion of the proceedings before the PRDA took time and, therefore, the flats could not be finally constructed and finished within the stipulated time.
It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that after the lodging of the F.I.R., the petitioners had prayed for the anticipatory bail before the court below. A compromise was effected between Respondent No. 6 and the petitioners, by virtue of which the petitioners were required to return the amount so invested by Respondent No 6 and others. Pursuant to the aforesaid settlement, one installment of Rs. 2,00,000 /- (two lakhs) was paid to Respondent No. 6.
However, later, with the demonetization, the Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1490 of 2017(2) dt.27-08-2018 3/4 petitioners found it difficult to return the money and hence an application was filed before the concerned court below for modification of the aforesaid order.
In the aforesaid modification petition, it was prayed by the petitioners that they be not insisted for adhering to the settlement because of the financial stringency of the petitioners.
It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 6 has been making false complaints in the PRDA and, in fact, he is instrumental in the delay in conclusion of proceedings before the PRDA.
The aforesaid statement has been refuted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 6.
Be that as it may, the petitioners have assured this Court that by whatever means, they will make payments of the amount invested by Respondent No. 6; but for the aforesaid purpose, some time be given to them so that necessary arrangements for sale of flats or for garnering funds could be made by the petitioners.
The Respondent No. 6 also would not be interested in the prosecution of the petitioners, but would like to get either the flats or the money invested by him.
Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.1490 of 2017(2) dt.27-08-2018 4/4 List this case after two months, i.e., on 05.11.2018.
Within the aforesaid period, the petitioners shall make all efforts to return the invested amount of Respondent No. 6 and his relatives.
In the meantime, let no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/-
U T