IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Cr.M.P No. 1309 OF 2004
Churaman Das Bhandani Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Jagarnath Prasad
3.Mukesh Prasad Opp. Parties
-------
CORAM HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
For the Appellant/Petitioner Mr.Ramawatar Sharma
For the Respondent/Opp. Party APP
--------
6. 20.9.2008
This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner
under section 482 Cr.P.C, assailing the order dated 12.5.2003 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, in T.R. No. 414/2003, by which the
application filed by the complainant-petitioner before the Magistrate was rejected.
2. The circumstance giving rise to this application is slightly unusual
and peculiar as it appears that the petitioner initially had lodged a complaint
against the respondents alleging that he had advanced a sum of Rs.15,000/- for
supply of a feature film titled as “Parayadhan”, but the copy of the film was not
supplied to the petitioner in spite of the fact that he had paid Rs.15,000/- to them.
He, therefore, filed a compliant petition before the Magistrate for registering the
complaint. The complaint was, in fact, registered under section 406, 420 and 120B
I.P.C.
2. The accused-opp. Parties filed an application before this Court which
was registered as Cr. Misc. No.1000/2000R and the same was heard by a learned
Single Judge of this Court. The said Cr.Misc. application was finally disposed of by
the order dated 13.7.2000, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to
direct that if the petitioners, i.e. accused opp. parites herein, pay the amount
involved in the proceeding, then the order taking cognizance will stand quashed.
The accused opp.parties deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- with the Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Giridih, where the case for cognizance was pending and the
2
amount is still lying with the aforesaid court, as stated by the counsel for the
petitioner.
The petitioner-complainant, however, was aggrieved of the fact that
the amount deposited by the accused-opp.parties was only Rs.15,000/-, whereas
the accused opp.parties should have deposited a sum of Rs.47,285.75 as the
Settlement Board had an occasion to adjudicate the dispute as to how much
amount was payable by the accused opp.parties to the petitioner. The said
application was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 12.5.2003,
and hence, the petitioner filed the instant Cr.Misc. petition for quashing the order
dated 12.5.2003, which is the order under challenge in this application.
3. Assailing the impugned order, counsel for the petitioner submitted
that as the accused opp.parties have failed to deposit the amount determined by
the Settlement Board, the case, which had been lodged by the petitioner under
section 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C, ought not to have been quashed by the
Magistrate. It was further submitted that if at all the order passed by the High Court
was fit to be complied, then the amount determined by the Settlement Board
amounting to Rs.47,285.75 ought to have been paid by the accused opp.parties to
the petitioner.
4. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner at some length and on
perusal of the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate as also the order
passed by the learned Single Judge, who had permitted the order of cognizance to
be quashed after the payment of the amount involved in the proceeding was
made, it would appear that the petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the
learned Single Judge before any Court earlier including the Supreme Court
contending that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was not fit to be
complied as the case lodged against the accused opp.parties could not have been
quashed even after the payment of Rs.15,000/-, which was the amount
involved in the proceeding. The petitioner had clearly acquiesced with the order
passed by the learned Single Judge to the effect that if the amount involved was
paid by the accused opp.parties to the complainant-petitioner, the case lodged
3
against the accused opp.parties should have been quashed. In fact, the petitioner,
after passing of the order by the learned Single Judge, had filed an application
before the Judicial Magistrate only for a direction that the amount determined by
the Settlement Board should have been paid to him and not merely the amount
which had been advanced by him to the accused opp.parties. If at all the petitioner
was aggrieved of the fact that the payment of Rs.15,000/- (which was the actual
amount advanced by him to the accused opp.parties, to him) by them as per the
order of the learned Single Judge was insufficient and the same should have
been paid as per the order of the Settlement Board, then he was obviously at
liberty to assail the order of the learned Single Judge before a higher forum by
way of an appeal, demanding that the amount determined by the Settlement Board
was required to be paid to him and the case lodged by him against the accused
opp.parties was fit to be proceeded in the event of its non-payment and should not
have been quashed by the learned Single Judge by passing a conditional order.
But the petitioner never challenged the order of the learned Single Judge and
thereafter filed an application before the Magistrate that the cognizance should not
have been quashed. Once the learned Single Judge rightly or wrongly passed the
order that the order taking cognizance shall stand quashed, in case the amount of
Rs.15,000/- involved in the proceeding was paid by the accused opp.parties, it
does not lie within his legal domain to challenge the same now by assailing the
order passed by the Magistrate. The counsel for the petitioner is clearly missing
that the Magistrate had merely complied the order passed by the learned Single
Judge and if, according to the petitioner, the amount to be paid to him should have
been higher as per the order of the Settlement Board than the one paid by the
accused opp.parties, he should have at least sought clarification from the learned
Single Judge in the earlier matter praying that the amount to be paid by the
respondents should be higher than the amount specified by the learned Single
Judge.
Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for assailing the
order passed by the Magistrate refusing to review the order of cognizance which
4
would have resulted in overriding the order of the learned Single Judge quashing
the order of cognizance. This application, under the circumstance, has no merit
and is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(Gyan Sudha Misra, C.J)
dey