Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.
Arjun Prasad - Appellant
Vs.
State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45906 of 2014
Decided On : 03-08-2018
Section 482 - Quashing of Criminal Revision - Sections 424, 427, 420, 380, 504 and 34 of I.P.C. - [424, 427, 420, 380, 504, 34] - The court discussed the legal provisions of Sections 424, 427, 420, 380, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and their application in the case. It emphasized the lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner and the binding nature of decrees and orders on the complainant firm.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for quashing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, which set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate in a complaint case. The complaint was filed against the petitioner and others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no prima facie case against the petitioner and other accused persons, and the Revisional Court's decision to set aside the Magistrate's order was wrong and illegal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession of property, eviction suit, and the legality of the actions taken by the petitioner and the complainant firm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner and the binding nature of decrees and orders on the complainant firm.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed, and the petition was allowed.
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one turned up on behalf of O.P. no. 2 despite putting appearance in the case.
2. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Patna in Criminal Revision no. 879 of 2010, 235 of 2012 whereby the learned Sessions Judge disposing of the aforesaid Criminal Revision set aside the order dated 09.08.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case no. 1565 (C) of 2010 with direction to the court below to make further inquiry and to pass fresh order considering the facts and evidence of the case according to law.
3. O.P. no. 2 (complainant) filed Complaint Case no. 1565 (C) of 2010 against the petitioner and others under Sections 424, 427, 420, 380, 504 and 34 of I.P.C. with the allegation in succinct that Ravindra Kumar Singh is the proprietor of M/S Ravi Coal Briquettes, he applied for loan of Rs. 1.44 lakhs in the Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patliputra Branch, under the liberalized scheme for educated unemployed persons on 27.02.1979. Said loan was sanctioned for starting a Unit of Coal Briquettes and accordingly an unit namely, M/s. Ravi Coal Briquettes was established at Saristabad, Patna. In this regard, Rabindra Kumar Singh took plot no. 1728 on lease for 20 years from Deo Nath Rai, Jeet Lal Rai and Kedar Nath Rai through a registered lease of deed dated 04.03.1979. After inspection of the site by B.S.F.C. officials, loan of Rs. 1.46 lacs was sanctioned in favour of M/s Ravi Coal Briquettes, Saristabad, Patna. After grant of loan, Ravindra Kumar Singh constructed building upon the said plot and also installed machines for running the Unit. All the properties i.e. plant machinery, constructed portion of building of M/s Ravi Coal Briquettes were hypotheticated in the B.S.F.C. Patna against the aforesaid loan amount. After death of Deo Nath Rai and Jeet Lal Rai, their heirs as well as Kedar Nath Rai hatching conspiracy filed Eviction Suit no. 11 of 2004 against Ravindra Kumar Singh. He put his appearance in the case and placed correct facts before the court below to the effect that he left Patna for Gurgaon in connection with his livelihood entrusting the court's work to his learned Advocate R.N. Singh. But said advocate did neither take any interest in the case nor informed him regarding its development. All of sudden, on 15.04.2010, accused persons along with court staff and muscle men took possession over the property of M/s Ravi Coal Briquettes and also obtained a favourable report of delivery of possession. No court has passed decree against the property of M/s. Ravi Coal Briquettes but in spite of that decree was executed and delivery of possession was given to the accused Arjun Prasad and otheres Bala Bala. On the strength of D.P. accused persons dismantled the constructed building of the company took away all the materials including the machines. The accused persons committed mischief, theft of hypothicated goods of the company causing loss of more than Rs. 10 Lacs.
4. During course of inquiry proprietor of the firm namely, Ravindra Kumar Singh examined himself on S.A. and also examined his two witnesses. After peruslal of compalaint petition, S.A., evidence of witnesses and materials available on the record. Learned magistrate finding no prima facie case against the petitioner and other accused persons dismissed the aforesaid complaint case vide its order dated 09.08.2010. Assailing the said dismissal order, said firm namely M/s. Ravi Coal Briquettes filed Criminal Revision No. 879/2010 /235/2010 which was disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Magistrate with direction to make further inquiry and pass fresh order by Learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna vide order dated 03.07.2014. For quashing the aforesaid order, petitioner has filed this quashing petition.
5. It is subm
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
