Jharkhand High Court
Dinesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 October, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 3342 of 2022
Dinesh Kumar Pandey .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand.
2.Dr. Hari Prasad .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
...........
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, APP
......
07/ 10.10.2023. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Cr. M. P. has been filed for quashing the entire criminal
proceeding including the cognizance order dated 19.12.2019 passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in Complaint Case
No.1060 of 2016 whereby and whereunder learned court below found that
there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioner for committing
offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 384 and 506 IPC.
2. The case of the complainant is that both the sides have entered into three
development agreement dated 10.08.2008, 28.03.2008 and 19.02.2008 for
construction of a Hospital.
3. The main grievance of the complainant is that the complainant pursuant to the
agreement for development paid more than the amount of Rs.1.80 Crores as
agreed between the parties. Despite full payment having been made, the
petitioner constructed the hospital and handed-over the same, but not as per
the agreement. The complainant took a separate electric connection and
invested a lot in completing the hospital.
4. During enquiry, the statement of the complainant and three witnesses were
recording following which the summoning order has been passed and
aggrieved by it, the instant Cr. M. P. has been filed.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the averment
made in the complaint, no offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC is made out
as there had not been any element of inducement and the complainant entered
into Development Agreement with this petitioner not once, but thrice on
different dates in about one year.
6. It is further submitted that as per the terms of the agreement, the building has
been handed-over and after being satisfied with the construction work, the
petitioner received about Rs.1.8 Crores which will be evident from Para-7 of
the complaint petition. For deficiency of the service or the quality, the
criminal prosecution will not be maintainable.
7. On similar allegations, the complainant had earlier lodged Sidhgora P.S. Case
No.12 of 2011 in which after investigation, final form has been submitted as
the same was not found to be true on which protest-cum-complaint petition
was filed which has been dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2015/ 27.01.2015
for default after which the instant case on similar allegations has been filed.
8. Law is settled that unless there is deception since its inception, mere breach
of contract by itself is not sufficient for fastening of criminal liability on the
accused/ petitioner. Reliance is placed on the judgment reported in 2023 (5)
SCC 360 and 2021 SCC OnLine 976.
9. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/
Opp. Party No.2 have defended the impugned order. It is submitted that
beyond the terms of the agreement, the petitioner had realized Rs.20 Lakhs
more from the complainant for installation of major fittings of the Hospital
which was not made as agreed upon. The petitioner was also demanding
Rs.30,000/- per month.
10. Having heard, learned counsel for the both the sides as well as perusing the
materials available on records, it is apparent that the matter involves a
financial dispute between the complainant and the petitioner with whom
complainant entered into different agreements for construction of a Hospital.
The hospital was constructed and hundred over four which the payment has
been made to the petitioner. Had there been any non-execution of the contract
for which payment would not have been released to the petitioner. After the
said payment further 20 lakh is claimed to have been paid for other fittings to
be done and the dispute is with regard to none completion of this part of the
work. On these facts at best a breach of contract can be inferred and not for
any criminal offence. I find force in the submissions advanced on behalf of
the petitioner to the extent that there was no deception since its inception of
the agreement arrived at in between the parties.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated
19.12.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in
Complaint Case No.1060 of 2016 is set aside.
The instant Cr. M. P. is allowed.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
