JUDGMENT

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.:–

The sole petitioner and the contesting respondent no. 5 are same in both the writ applications. On the request of learned counsel for the parties, both the matters have been taken up together for consideration.

Cr. W.J.C. No. 371 of 2017

2. In this case the petitioner is seeking quashing of the first information report being Danapur P.S. Case No. 514 of 2016 dated 12.12.2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the informant-respondent no. 5 are as under:—

(i) That the informant is the wife of one Sri Ramashray Prasad Yadav (Ex-chairman of BPSC). A building named Shyam Residency has been constructed on her land. The petitioner who is the builder has given in writing that the respondent no. 5 will get 45% share in the constructed portion. Shop No. 25 fell in the share of respondent no. 5 but the builder sold the same to one Manoj Kumar unauthorizedly. The informant alleged that her share of parking lot has also been rented out by the builder to two muscle men (Bahubali) despite the fact that the Hon’ble High Court had directed vide order dated 24.03.2015 that no