Back
2006 Supreme(Pat) 1183
PATNA HIGH COURT
Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J.
Mahendra Narain Singh, Sunil Kumar Singh, Bimla Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35482 of 2005 ; 35457 of 2005 ; 36139 of 2005 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 5, 2006
The judgment establishes that concealing encumbrances, providing forged documents, and committing fraud and criminal breach of trust can lead to criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Criminal Breach of Trust - Land Development Agreement - Indian Penal Code Sections 418, 465, 467, 471, 120-B
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a private limited company, entered into a land development agreement with the accused persons to construct apartments on their joint family land. The accused concealed encumbrances and encroachments on the land, provided forged documents, and committed fraud and criminal breach of trust.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused persons did not come with clean hands and committed criminal offences by providing forged documents and concealing encumbrances. The court held that a prima facie case under Sections 418, 465, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused persons.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused persons committed criminal offences by concealing encumbrances and providing forged documents, and whether the complaint was a simple case of breach of agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the allegations established criminal offences under the Indian Penal Code, and that a civil remedy was not the only available option for the complainant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications and upheld the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the accused persons.
1. All the three Criminal Miscellaneous application i.e. Cri. Misc. No. 35482 of 2005, Cri. Misc. No. 35457 of 2005 and Cri. Misc. No. 36139 of 2005 are being taken up together for disposal as the same have been preferred against the order dated 5.4.2000 passed in Complaint Case No. 1591 (c) of 1999, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, Patna, has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 418,465,467,471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The order is being passed in Cri. Misc. No. 35482 of 2005 which will dispose of all the three applications.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is a private limited company and its main business is to develop/ construct apartments.
4. Further case is that late Rameshwar Pd. Singh and his brothers i.e. accused nos. 1 to 3 approached the complainant in 1995 and made offer to the complainant to develop and construct apartments on their joint family land bearing Municipal Khesra survey plot No. 793, Tauzi No. 389, Khata no. 91, Survey Thana no. 07, situated at New Punai Chak, PS. Shastri Nagar within the district of Patna measuring 17.6 decimal of land. All the accused persons and their family members participated in the negotiation with the complainant and assured that the land is free from all encumbrance. Thereafter, on 29th October, 1995, late Rameshwar Pd. Singh and alll the accused persons excluding accused no. 4 signed the agreement with the complainant in respect of the aforesaid land and executed power of attorney in favour of the Director of Company. According to the agreement, the share of the accused was 34% of super built up area and the share of the complainant was 66%of the super built up area.
5. It is alleged that after execution of the agreement and power of attorney the complainant started his work for development of the aforesaid land and came to know that some part of the land has been encroached by others and major parts of the lands were acquired by the authority for the purpose of an approach road to plot no. 792 and the accused persons intentionally concealed the said facts from the complainant and entered into the agreement and thereby committed fraud and criminal breach of trust.
6. It is further alleged that the complainant asked the accused persons to cancel the agreement and to pay the expenses incurred by him and aiso to return the money given by the complainant, whereupon, the accused persons assured the complainant that they would compensate and repay all the expenses done by the complainant towards removal of encroachment and release of land from acquisition. The complainant invested huge amount in getting the land free from all encumbrances and while doing so the complainant had to fight litigation also. In order to meet the acquisition problem, the complainant paid the additional cost of acquisition to the land owner of plot no. 792 and had to make an agreement with the land owner of plot no. 792 also and the accused persons assured that the amount spent would be adjusted from their share.
7. It is the further case of the complainant that as per the Development Agreement, the complainant prepared the map for the land of accused and of plot no. 792 and handed over the said map to late Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Saryug Singh for submitting the same in PRDA Office after getting the signatures of all accused.Thereafter, Late Rameshwar Prasad Singh and Saryug Singh submitted that map in - PRDA purported to be signed by all accused excluding accused no. 4. The map was approved by the PRDA on 15.7.96. The accused persons on the basis of the map signed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 13.11.96, according to which the share of accused in built up area was 5064 sq. ft. which consisted of 8 flats which were marked with numbers.The accused persons entered into in another Development Agreement with the complainant on 27.7.1997 and executed power of attorney in favour of the company on the terms a
