Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, J.
Padam Chand Garg - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar - Opposite Parties
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41316 of 2015
Decided On : 28-04-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Murlidhar, APP
For the O P. No. 2 :Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations made in the complaint did not attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The court also emphasized the need for a sensitive and committed approach of the Judicial Magistrates in appreciating the facts of the case and law involved therein before passing any order.
Headnote:
Forgery - Criminal Conspiracy - Sections 468, 471, 120-B of the IPC - The court found that the allegations made in the complaint did not attract the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC. The court also highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that the complaint was filed with an intent to humiliate, harass, and blackmail the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The complaint alleged that the petitioners, who were the Chairman and Managing Director of a company, deliberately and willfully put their signatures on a vakalatnama in collusion with each other to gain wrongfully and cheat the complainant. The learned Magistrate summoned the petitioners to face trial for offences under Sections 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC based on these allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations did not constitute any offence under the mentioned sections of the IPC. It also noted that the complaint was filed with an intent to humiliate, harass, and blackmail the petitioners.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the allegations made in the complaint attracted the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC and whether the learned Magistrate was right in dispensing with the inquiry as prescribed under Section 202(1) of the CrPC before issuing process against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the complaint was filed with an intent to humiliate, harass, and blackmail the petitioners and found that the allegations did not constitute any offence under the mentioned sections of the IPC. It also highlighted that the learned Magistrate acted against the mandate of law in dispensing with the inquiry as envisaged under Section 202(1) of the CrPC.
Final Decision: Complaint Case No. 2025(C) of 2015 and the entire proceedings arising out of the said complaint were quashed by the court.
Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 (hereinafter referred to “the Complainant”) and Mr. Murlidhar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. By way of the present application preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CrPC), the petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2025(C) of 2015, whereby the learned Magistrate has summoned the petitioners for attendance for exercise of powers conferred under Section 204 of the CrPC for facing trial under Sections 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).
3. The case of the Complainant as stated in the complaint is that the petitioners are respectively the Chairman and Managing Director of P.C. Jewellers Limited (for short the Company). On 27th July, 2014, the Company opened a new showroom in Patna and on 29th July, 2014, the Complainant ordered for a gold chain valuing Rs.74,999/- to the Company showroom. In order to make payment, the Complainant sold his old ornaments valuing Rs.45,789/-, which was adjusted by the Company against payment of the new gold chain. The remaining amount of Rs.29,210/- was paid by the Complainant to the staffs of the Company in cash. It has further been stated that the due date fixed for delivery of chain was 22nd August, 2014, but on 22nd August, 2014, when the Complainant visited the Company showroom for delivery of the ordered chain one Ravi De. Radia and one Samar Chand Goswami, both staffs of the Company showroom refused to deliver the gold chain. When the Complainant requested them for the delivery, they said that the petitioners had directed them to deliver the chain after two months in view of the fact that several orders were placed before the Company and the Company was unable to deliver the orders within the stipulated period.
4. It has further been alleged that the aforesaid two staffs of the Company showroom further said that if he wants delivery of his chain immediately, he will have to pay an extra amount of Rs.20,000/- as directed by the petitioners. When the Complainant expressed his inability to pay the extra amount, both of them assaulted and threatened him with dire consequences.
5. It has been further stated that the Complainant went to Shrikrishnapuri Police Station to lodge an FIR in this regard, but the police did not register the FIR and, thereafter, Complaint Case No. 28676(C) of 2014 was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 23rd August, 2014. In the said complaint, the Complainant was examined on oath and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna took cognizance of the offences under Sections 417 and 406 of the IPC against the aforesaid two staffs of the Company showroom, namely, Ravi De. Radia and Samar Chand Goswami only, vide order dated 10th November, 2014 and no pima facie case was found to be made as against the petitioners.
6. The Complainant has further averred that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 10th November, 2014, whereby cognizance was not taken against the petitioners, the Complainant filed Cr. Revision No. 7758 of 2014 in the court of Sessions Judge, Patna on 2nd December, 2014. In the said Criminal Revision the learned Sessions Judge, Patna issued notice to the petitioners.
7. On receipt of notice, vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the petitioners in the court of Sessions Judge, Patna on 17th April, 2015. It has been stated that on seeing the said vakalatnama, the Complainant found that signatures put on the vakalatnama of both the petitioners are doubtful and incomplete. For his satisfaction and to remove his doubt, the Complainant applied for an information under the Right to Information Act (for short “RTI”) before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Patna on 21st May, 2
