Advocates:
['CHAITALI CHATTERJEE SINHA', '', 'YOGESH MODI', 'SHUBHAM GAUTAM', 'GOURI S PRASAD', '', 'ACHINTO SEN', 'SURAJ KUMAR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 428 of 2016

--

1. Rajendra Kumar Juneja @ Rajender Kumar

2. Vijay Kumr Juneja

3. Kanta Rani @ Kanta Juneja

4. Dhiraj Juneja

....

Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Rameshwar Mandal

…

Opposite Parties

---

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

---

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate

For the State

: Mrs. Lili Sahay, A.P.P.

For the O.P. No. 2

: Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate

---

Order No. 05

Dated 08

^th September 2016

Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs.

Lili Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned

counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2.

In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the

entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 243 of

2015 including the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate, Dhanbad, whereby cognizance has been taken for the

offences punishable u/s 385, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Initially a compliant case was instituted by the opposite party No.

being Complaint Case No. 1828 of 2014 which was referred to the

police u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for instituting an F.I.R. giving rise to

Bagodar (Sariya) P.S. Case No. 329 of 2014. The police after

investigation submitted final form and on being noticed the opposite

party No. 2 filed a protest petition which was treated as complaint case.

After conducting enquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance has been taken for

the offences punishable u/s 385, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegations which have been made in the complaint in that on

25.12.2011 an agreement was entered into between the accused and

the complainant with respect to selling of a property of the petitioners

and it was agreed upon that if the property is sold at a higher price then

it had been decided between the parties that the amount of profit shall

be paid to the complainant. The complainant had also agreed to deposit

Rs. 10 Lakhs as security to the accused persons. Allegation has been

made that in terms of the agreement, the lands were sold at a higher

price and when the complainant on 20.09.2014 went to demand

2.

amount of profit and refund of the security amount, the same was not

refunded by the accused persons and the accused persons had forcibly

taken away the original agreement from the possession of the

complainant and had taken his signature on blank sheets and had also

given him threatening.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire

dispute is civil in nature which relates to a monetary claim made by the

complainant though according to learned counsel the said amount of profit

has already been paid to the complainant which could be gathered from

the agreement entered in between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite

party No. 2. Learned counsel submits that no case of cheating is made out

against the petitioners and so for as the offence u/s 385 I.P.C. is

concerned, the same has been inserted only to making the offence look

more serious. Learned counsel therefore submits that the complaint

petition on the face of it reveals existence of civil dispute and therefore the

entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

Mr. Suraj Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has

submitted that the subsequent agreement was never entered into

between the petitioner No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2, with respect

to making payment of the amount of profit and it is a disputed document,

as the opposite party No. 2 was never a signatory to the said document.

The allegation made in the complaint petition has been supported by all

the witnesses in course of enquiry and apart from the fact that the

amount of profit was never given to the compl