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 none of the shares would be sold during the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble High Court. The informant alleged that the builder Rakesh Kumar @ Guddu is having criminal antecedent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the first information report on the ground of sameness of the case with that of the earlier case lodged by respondent no. 5 against the petitioner being Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 251 of 2012 under Sections 406, 420, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that for the identical reason the said FIR was lodged. A copy of the FIR giving rise to Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 251 of 2012 has been placed on record as Annexure -2. In order to demonstrate that the present case is not on any fresh cause of action, learned counsel has taken this Court through the contents of the first information report (Annexure 2).

5. It is submitted that in the said case the informant alleged that first development agreement was executed with the builder Rakesh Kumar on 14.12.2007 but by playing fraud upon her, the builder got executed the second development agreement on 10.02.2010 and the same was registered. It is then alleged that the builder did not complete the share of the land owner for about five years in Shyam Arcade Apartment situated near RPS More then the informant made physical inspection of the spot and she gathered information that the builder had sold even the share of the land owner/informant to the buyers. He has forcibly possessed the under construction apartment and the commercial area which had fallen in the share of the land owner. He had opened a TVS Motorcycle show room and had closed the stairs portion just adjacent to the showroom. Respondent no. 5 alleged in the said FIR that she went on calling the builder to come and discuss but he did not turn up, thereafter, the informant went to the under constructed apartment of Shyam Arcade on 26.08.2012 where the Manager of the Show Room acted in very indecent manner with her and threatened her and her husband to forcibly take possession of the entire property and the apartment. It is alleged that the builder Rakesh Kumar along with his three other muscle men came to the residence of the informant on 31.08.2012 at 7:30 p.m. and they started threatening the informant saying that they will not give a single rupaiya and an inch of the share and that the old woman and the old man cannot do anything to him as the entire police administration in his hand. The informant has alleged that one boy of short height who was with the builder took out a pistol from his waist and was threatening the informant. It is also alleged that the builder Rakesh Kumar snatched the golden chain from the informant and placed the pistol on her and threatened her. The builder a