HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application under Sec. 482, Cr PC has been filed for quashing the order dated 23.8.1997 passed in C.P. Case No. 213/97, whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dhanbad took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 420, IPC.
(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of this application are that the opposite party lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging, inter alia, therein that he was awarded a contract for a total sum of Rs. 6,96,575/ -. It is further alleged that besides the said contract, on verbal instruction and assurance of the accused persons, the complainant had performed extra work to the tune of Rs. ,73,801.83 paise. It is further alleged that payment of extra work, done on verbal instruction and assurance of accused persons, has not been paid. On the basis of complaint filed, an enquiry under Sec.202, Cr PC was held and cognizance under Sec. 420, Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioners. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. It is further submitted that even the allegations are taken to be correct in its entirety; no offence is made out under Sec. 420, IPC. It is further submitted that even if the allegations are taken to be correct, it will be a case of civil dispute, for which no criminal prosecution can be launched. The aforesaid criminal case has been lodged against the petitioners with an oblique motive to harass the petitioners because in no case, amount so claimed, can be paid to the complainant - respondent and this is nothing but a pressure tactics to pressurize the petitioners to pay the amount. It is further submitted that from the work order it will appear that petitioners asked to perform particular work and not the extra work. It is also submitted that at no point of time the complainant was asked to perform any extra work as alleged by him and complainant could not produce any document in support of the fact. It is further submitted that matter is otherwise, because complainant had not completed his work awarded to him, as a result of which the work, issued to him, was to be terminated by the company i.e. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Annexure 7). It is also submitted that payment was to be made as per contract work done by him and from the complaint petition, it appears that complainant has been paid the amount and the complainant has also admitted this fact. Hence a prayer has been made to quash the proceeding.
(3.) NOTICE was served on the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 appeared through vakalatanama but at the time of hearing no body appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. However, learned APP for the State submitted that cognizance in the case has been taken after enquiry and at this stage there should not be any interference in the cognizance taken in the case.;