PRASHANT KUMAR, J. - (1.) 1. This is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with B.T.P.S. Case no. 85/2000 corresponding to G.R. no. 838/2000 pending in the court of A.C.J.M. Bermo at Tenughat.
(2.) RESPONDENT no.3 namely Motilal Mahto filed a complaint in the court of A.C.J.M. Bermo, which was sent to Bokaro Thermal Power Station for institution of F.I.R. and investigation vide order dated 20.10.2000. Accordingly, B.T.P.S.case no. 85/2000 dated 24.10.2000 under section 384/386/467/468/471/420 of the I.P.C. instituted. In brief, prosecution story, as narrated in the complaint petition is that the respondent no.3(complainant) purchased a truck bearing registration no. 17G-4458 from petitioner for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is further stated that since truck was not in a condition to ply, it was agreed between the parties that complainant will get it repaired and deduct the price of repairing from consideration amount and pay rest of the amount in cash. It is further stated that complainant spent Rs. 1,46,000/- towards repairing of said truck, thus, he is required to pay only rest of the amount by cash or by bank draft. It is alleged that at the time of purchase, petitioner took various signatures of complainant on different papers and assured complainant that said papers will be returned on payment of consideration amount with no objection certificate. It is alleged that after receiving entire consideration amount, petitioner issued Form-35 (No Objection Certificate) in favour of complainant and on the basis of said Form-35, complainant got the owner book transferred in his name from the office of District Transport Officer. It is stated that thereafter, complainant sold said truck to somebody else. It is stated that petitioner even after receiving entire consideration amount did not return documents signed by the complainant and now he is threatening to get the owner book of the truck cancelled on the basis of documents available with him. It is further alleged that petitioner may convert aforesaid signed paper into valuable documents and cheat complainant.
(3.) SRI S.L.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present complaint petition filed with malafide intention to evade payment of the petitioner's dues. He further submits that from the averments made in the complaint petition no offence under sections 384/386/467/468/471/420 of the I.P.C. is made out, thus, F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. It is submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint petition are taken to be true on their face value, same constitutes only a civil dispute, which can be resolved by a competent civil court. It is submitted that in fact, petitioner filed Money Suit in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Purulia for a decree of recovery of Rs. 3,33,368/- with 18% interest towards price of truck in question. Accordingly, it is submitted that since a civil case is pending, it is not desirable to prosecute petitioner on the same facts. Accordingly, it is submitted that entire criminal proceeding be quashed. On the other hand Mr. M.K.Dey, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that offences as enumerated in the complaint petition are made out against the petitioner. Thus, at the initial stage it is not desirable to quash the entire criminal proceeding. Accordingly, he submits that present writ application be dismissed. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the records of the case.;