Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.875 of 2015 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2334 Year-2013 Thana- GAYA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictGaya ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son of Baijnath Sharma resident of Mohalla - Near Bikaneri Dharmshala Godawari Road, Chand Choura, Police Station- Civil Line, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Ribha Sharma Wife of Sushil Kumar Singh Proprietor of Sindhuja Engineer and Countractor Firm, Godawari Road Chand Choura, P.S. Civil Line, District- Gaya 3.
Sushil Kumar Singh Son of Lal Bahadur Sharma Both resident of village - Mau, Police Station Takari, District - Gaya, At Present both resident of Mohalla - House No. 120B, Sultanpur Colony, M.G. Road New Delhi - 110030 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramashish, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Nand Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-04-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner is complainant of Complaint Case No.2334 of 2013. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.09.2015 passed in the aforesaid complaint case whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya, did not issue summons to face trial against accused Sushil Kumar Singh, who is Opposite Party No.3 herein. The complainant is further aggrieved as the Court-below did not proceed with the trial for
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.875 of 2015 dt.03-04-2019 2/3 the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as alleged in the complaint petition.
3. The impugned order briefly narrates the prosecution allegation that Opposite Party No.2 Ribha Sharma, who was wife of Opposite Party No.3 Sushil Kumar Singh, was a registered contractor of civil construction in the civil departments of the government and the complainant was a petty contractor under her. The complainant was assigned three construction work by Ribha Sharma, referred in the complaint petition. Ribha Sharma made payment of the contract amount through cheque to the complainant on different occasions. However, one of the cheques of Rs.22,75,000/- issued by Ribha Sharma bounced. Learned Court-below has recorded that since Ribha Sharma was making payment of the contract amount in the past, hence, dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement or on the date of issuance of the cheque which bounced cannot be gathered. Hence, offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. The Court-below further recorded that role of co-accused Sushil Kumar Singh is nowhere there in any of the transactions. Hence, no summons was issued to Sushil Kumar Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.875 of 2015 dt.03-04-2019 3/3 fact the actual transaction was being done by accused No.2 Sushil Kumar Singh. Hence, prima facie case was there against him also.
5. This is not a case of vicarious liability nor there is any material to substantiate that Sushil Kumar Singh had ever issued any cheque in favour of the complainant or was in any other way engaged in any act of co-accused Ribha Sharma in her business matter. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, this criminal revision stands dismissed.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.04.2019 Transmission Date 05.04.2019