Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21147 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-248 Year-2016 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Chhunu Jee @ Ram Dayal Prasad Son Of Radhe Shyam Resident Of Sanjay Nagar, Road No.10, Near Bigrahpur, P.S. - Jakkanpur, Buddha Colony, Patna ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Arun Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Ramesh Prasad Proprietor Of M/S Mayukh Enterprises, Resident Of Village - Shastri Chowk, Dighi Road, P.S. - Nagar, District - Darbhanga ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr.Y.C. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr.Adarsh Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Jai Narain Thakur. APP For the O.P. No. 2 :
Mr.Pintu Kumar Patel, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-07-2025 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. This application has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the 'Cr.P.C.') as to quash the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in Complaint Case No. 248/2016, whereby learned court found prima facie case under section 409 & 420 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner for issuance of summon.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21147 of 2023 dt.09-07-2025 2/3
3. The prosecution case in brief, speaks that complainant for his business of printing asked the accused/petitioner to supply printing machine. The complainant alleged that for installation of the said machine, the complainant deposited Rs. 3,49,650/- in the account of the accused persons through bank draft. Thereafter, the machines were installed after two months, but only after three days, the machines went out of order. The complainant further alleged that the accused persons including petitioner assured the complainant to give a new machine or return the money within 30 days, but, on 18.12.2015, the accused persons denied to return the said money to the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint case.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that from narration of complaint itself, the grievance of the petitioner is fit to be raised before the court of consumer forum. It is submitted that admittedly, the machine in issue was installed, but as some technical issue was noticed, which was not redressed within time or replaced with new one, as alleged, present criminal complaint was lodged. It is submitted that no prima facie case qua offences punishable under section 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, the 'I.P.C.') appears to be made out of narration as set out through
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21147 of 2023 dt.09-07-2025 3/3 complaint petition qua petitioner/accused persons.
5. Mr. Pintu Kumar Patel, learned counsel while appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 2, could not disputed the submissions as advanced by Mr. Verma.
6. In view of the aforesaid, he seeks liberty to approach before the concerned consumer forum.
7. Considering the aforesaid, the order taking cognizance dated 20.07.2018 passed by learned A.C.J.M., Darbhanga in connection with Complaint Case No. 248/2016 is hereby quashed/set aside with liberty to the opposite party no. 2 to approach before appropriate consumer forum, as submitted aforesaid.
8. Accordingly, this application stands allowed.
9. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned learned trial court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.07.2025 Transmission Date 10.07.2025