Keshav Narayan Jha @ Gopal Jha v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.28246 of 2013 Arising Out of P.S.Case No.71 Year- 2007 Thana -MADHUBANI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictMADHUBANI =========================================================== Keshav Narayan Jha @ Gopal Jha S/O Late Baidyanath Jha Permanent Resident o Village Kasiyam, P.S. Lakhnaur, District Madhubani, Presently Working At Extension Counter, District Education Directorate, Patna University, Patna. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shambhu Pandit S/O Shri Saryug Pandit Resident Of Court Road, Jhanjharpur, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani.
.... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bimal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No.1, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-10-2017 This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 23.09.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class in Complaint Case No.71 of 2007 (Trial No.2374 of 2008) whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Sections 417 and 504 of the IPC against the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. The Opposite Party No.2 in spite of service of notice did not appear to oppose this application.
3. After hearing both sides and on perusal of documents on record, I find that the Opposite Party No.2 and petitioner entered into
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28246 of 2013 dt.10-10-2017 2/2 an agreement for construction of house. The complainant Opposite Party No.2 claims that a sum of Rs.5787/- fell due against the petitioner for the construction work done by the Opposite Party No.2. It further appears that there are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and complainant on the point of dues amount. Some of the witnesses have stated that the complainant is a contractor under whom they had worked. I further find that there is absolutely no allegation of abusing against the petitioner. None of the witnesses has stated that the petitioner had abused the complainant. The nature of dispute between the parties appears to be of a civil which can be adjudicated only after assessing the work performed by complainant.
4. The criminal prosecution of this petitioner in the light of above discussions appears to be abuse of the process of the Court. As such, this application is allowed and order dated 23.09.2008 taking cognizance is hereby quashed.
(Sanjay Kumar, J) B.Kr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 12.10.2017 Transmission Date 12.10.2017