- (1.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 10.04.2000 passed in Criminal Revision No. 63 of 1993, whereby and whereunder the revisional court, having set aside the order dated 12.01.1993 passed in Complaint Case No.377 of 1991, remanded the matter before the court concerned, for passing a fresh order on the point of cognizance, in accordance with law.
(2.) IT is the case of the complainant that the complainant did approach to one Ashok Chandra Mallik, one of the executors and trustees of 'Gibraltar House' at Hazaribagh, Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and negotiated to purchase trust property. Ashok Chandra Mallik agreed to sell out the properties and thereupon, he realized heavy amount from the complainant and other persons, which amount was handed over to one of the accused Ashok Kumar Sinha to be given to Ashok Chandra Mallik and other trustees of Gibralter House, Hazaribagh. The aforesaid amount had been given by the complainant when it had been said that they will execute the sale deed but the accused person never executed the sale deed, though several requests were made by them. On said allegation, a complaint case was registered as Complaint Case No. 377 of 1991. After holding inquiry, the court passed an order on 12.01.1993, whereby it was held that no criminal case is made out against the petitioners, rather it is a case of civil remedy. That order was challenged before the revisional court, which was set aside and the revision application was allowed, for the reason stated herein below: - "In the case in hand as I have referred above some circumstances there is sufficient material on its face available to show that the accused persons had dishonest intention reflected by their conduct through out right from the time money was advanced to them till now not to execute the sale deed in favour of the intending purchasers nor to refund back their money as there has been shown nothing in this revision on behalf of the accused persons that they have done something in this regard even till today when it is 9 years late. In this background in my opinion it is absolutely incorrect for the court below to observe that the matter is absolutely of civil nature and there can lie no criminal prosecution for the accused persons. I therefore, find that the impugned order is not a good one, it has got no merit and, therefore, not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, I set it aside with direction that the learned court below will make further inquiry into the matter and will pass necessary order on the petition for complainant in accordance with law. The criminal revision is allowed."
(3.) MR . Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had never demanded any money from the complainant or by any other persons, rather the petitioners have been made accused on the allegation that they had promised to the complainant that they would help the complainant in getting the sale deed executed and if the petitioners have failed to keep the promise, the petitioners had not committed any criminal offence and, therefore, revisional court, did commit illegality in setting aside the order, under which it had been held that no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned Magistrate while passing the order, was quite justified in holding, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that it is the case of civil remedy.;