- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. No one appears for the O.P. No.2 in spite of repeated calls, even though the, O.P. No.2 has appeared through advocate in this case an earlier occasion also no one had appeared in spite of repeated calls.
(2.) IN this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 154 of 1996 including the order dated 22.7.2000 passed by Sri M. K. Srivastav, learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby, the petition filed under Sections 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner was rejected by the Court below. It appears that the complaint petition was filed by the opposite party -complainant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur which was registered as complaint Case No. 154 of 1996, in which the father of the petitioner was one of the accused in the case, besides Smt. Uma Chatterjee, who were engaged in construction work. The complaint was filed with respect to breach of an agreement for construction of shop by the accused persons, which was to be let out to the complainant. The petitioner was not made accused in this case and there is no whisper about any allegation against the petitioner in the entire complaint petition. However, it appears that the witnesses were examined before charge, including the complainant and his brother, who have stated that the agreement was entered between the accused persons and the complainant which the petitioner was the attesting witness and they also stated that the money was advanced on several occasions to the accused persons and the accused persons had also given the receipts to the complainant and the petitioner had signed on the receipts also as witness. On that basis alone the petitioner has been made accused in this case and it also appears that when the petitioner filed application for discharge, his application was dismissed by the learned Court below by the impugned order dated 22.7.2000 stating that the petitioner had signed the agreement and he is also one of the beneficiaries and, accordingly, it is not proper to discharge the petitioner. It has also been stated that there are specific materials in the records for framing the charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the prayer for discharge was rejected.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, there is no allegation against the petitioner in the entire complaint petition and even in the evidence of the witnesses including the complainant, who were examined by the court below before charge, there is no material against the petitioner, except that he is an attesting witness to the agreement between the accused persons and the complainant, as well as, he had also signed the money receipts issued by the accused persons as a witness. Learned counsel has submitted that only on that basis the petitioner cannot be said to be a beneficiary and he cannot be made accused in this case and, accordingly, he has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;