Patna High Court - Orders
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 6 February, 2009
Author: Abhijit Sinha
Bench: Abhijit Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.50005 of 2007
BINDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, Son of Late Pachkori Singh,
Resident of village- Mainadhpur, Police Station-Korha,District-
Katihar. ---------------------- Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. Satya Narayan Mandal, Son of Basudeo Mandal, resident of
Village- Chapal, P.O. Gangeli, P.S. K.Nagar, District-Purnea
------------------------ Opp.Parties.
-----------
For the petitioner : M/S Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, and
Raj Kumar, Advocaes.
For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.
For Opp.Party no.2 : Mr. Anish Chandra Sinha, Advocate.
__________
ORDER
The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of K.Nagar
P.S. Case no.15 of 2007 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated
18.6.2007 passed therein by Sri R.Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist
Class, Purnea, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner
for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406/34 I.P.C.
It appears that one Satya Narain Mandal, impleaded herein
as Opp.Party no.2, filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, bearing no.2283 of 2006, which on being
transmitted to the concerned Police Station, the instant police case
came to be registered. According to the informant he happens to be a
big agriculturist and had grown potato crops over a huge area. It is
said that as the time for harvesting the crops arrived, accused Sanjay
Kumar Singh, the son of the petitioner herein, who had purchased all
his crops in the previous year of 2005 again arrived and having
perused the growth of potatos in the fields of the informant as also
-2-
those of Ashok Kumar Mehta, Brahmadeo Mandal, Rajesh Kumar
and Shiv Charan Mandal expressed his intention to purchase the same
and on 18.1.2006, the informant and the other cultivators and Sanjay
agreed to fix the purchase price of potato at Rs.365/- per quintal and
on 20.1.2006 the potato of the informant and the other cultivators was
carried by tractor to Katihar and a dakpatti between them was written
out. It is alleged that the payment for the crops was avoided on the
pretext that the money from where the accused had sold the potatos
had not been received and that a lump sum would be paid on final
accounting being done. It is alleged that it transpired that potatos
worth Rs.80,387/- had been purchased from the informant,
Rs.58958/- from Ashok Kumar Mehta, Rs.51,108/- from Brahmadeo
Mandal, Rs.16,432/- from Rajesh Kumar and Rs.13,768/- from Sheo
Charan Mandal and was due from the accused persons. It is alleged
that the accused persons eventually on 20.11.2006 told the cultivators,
with an intention to cheat and misappropriate their money, that they
should not approach them and that the money when it became
available would be sent to them.
It appears that after due investigation, the police submitted a
charge sheet only against the petitioner and the investigation was kept
pending against the remaining others.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it
would be apparent from a reading of the F.I.R. that the allegations
against the petitioner are general and omnibus in nature and no
specific accusations have been levelled at him. The specific
-3-
allegations, as would appear, are against Sanjay Kumar Singh, the son
of the petitioner, who is alleged to have purchased the potatos. It is
categorically asserted that the petitioner does not carry out any
business in potatos and has no connection with any business
concerning potatos. It is also asserted that the petitioner never
purchased any potato from any of the named cultivators nor was any
amount due with them. It was also submitted that even if the story as
propounded in the F.I.R. is believed to be true, the same would not
attract criminal liability as the entire dispute revolves round a
"commercial transaction" which would invite a civil dispute the
remedy wherefor is available by way of a civil suit.
The learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2 in defending the
impugned order has submitted that it is clear from the F.I.R. that all
the accused had purchased the crops from the informant and the other
cultivators as would be apparent from the employment of the word
"Abhiyuktgan". In this connection, it was submitted that although
Sanjay Kumar Singh is specifically named as the one who had come
to see the growth of crops and entered into the agreement to purchase
the potato crops, the purchase in fact was done by all the accused
persons including the petitioner and as there was clear intention to
cheat and misappropriate the money of the cultivators, criminal
liability would fall on the petitioner also.
I am unable to accept the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. Although, the initial petition of
complaint runs into five pages at no point has any specific allegation
-4-
been made against the petitioner. The employment of the word
"Abhiyuktgan" would not make the petitioner liable unless there was
any specific allegation against him which I find conspicuously
missing. Except for being named in the column of accused his name is
missing in the entire F.I.R. On the contrary, I would go along with the
learned counsel for the petitioner and hold that the instant case
revolves round a "commercial transaction" which would given rise to
a civil dispute and not invite criminal liability. Even the ingredients of
the offences of Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. do not appear to be
attracted.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned
order so far as the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed and the
application is allowed.
( Abhijit Sinha, J )
Patna High Court, Patna
Dated: the 6th February,2009
Nawal Kishore Singh/A.F.R.