Jharkhand High Court
Devendra Jain @ Devindra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 November, 2018
Author: R. Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 14 of 2012
---------
1. Devendra Jain @ Devindra
2. Vivek Jain ... ... Petitioners Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ishwar Lal Mahto ... ... Opposite Parties
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhishek Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, A.P.P.
---------
02/20.11.2018 Heard Mr. Abhishek Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State.
In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. C/I-1476/2010, including the order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
It appears from the allegations made in the complaint petition that the complainant had purchased a truck from the petitioner no. 2 on a consideration amount of Rs. 7,70,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- was paid at the time of purchase. It has been alleged that the tenure of loan was fixed from November, 2004 to September, 2007 and the monthly installment of Rs. 18,500/- was regularly paid by the complainant and in fact he had paid excess amount to the petitioners but in spite of the said fact NOC was not given and threat was meted out to the complainant by the petitioners.
After conducting an inquiry cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 384, 379 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Apparently from a perusal of the complaint petition a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners in view of -2- the fact that in spite of the complainant claiming that he had deposited excess amount NOC was not given to the complainant and he was threatened with dire consequences by the petitioners.
In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this application, which accordingly stands disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to conclude the trial at the earliest if, the same has not yet been concluded.
(R. Mukhopadhyay, J.) Alok/-