Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Cr. Revision Application as well as the Cr.M.P are being heard together and disposed of with this common order, as both the cases arise out of the C.P. Case No. 02 of 2006.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the complainant i.e. O.P. No. 2's case is that he is the proprietor of a firm in the name and style of M/s Tractor Tractor India, at Hazaribagh, involved in the business of financing for the purchase of motor vehicles. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 Yogendra Kumar Agarwal is the owner of M/s Tirupati Investments, at Jorafatak Road, Dhanbad and the other petitioners namely, Mohan Singh @ Motan Singh, Aatmaram Patwari, Ratgan Verma and Mahesh Goswami are the officials and staff of the said M/s Tirupati Investments The said firm has a business of financing trucks and buses on hire purchase basis. The complainant was also engaged as an agent by M/s Tirupati Investments for the purpose of bringing prospective customers to the firm of opposite party. That on 10.04.2011 the complainant was at the office of the petitioner No. 1 in connection with some work, at that time one Nasima Khatoon was present there for purchase of TATA mini truck to be financed by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner asked the complainant to put his signature on blank and printed form as a witness to the agreement but the complainant was reluctant to sign on the papers as Nasima Khatoon was a stranger to him however on persuasion of the opposite party he put his signature on the said blank form whereafter they told him that his signature was obtained as a guarantor and not as a witness upon which the complainant reprimanded the petitioner. It was revealed that complainant was also made liable along with the said borrower for payment of the financed amount for the truck. Since the borrower defaulted in payment of the installment the accused - petitioner sent a legal notice and terminated the agreement by letter dated 27.07.2001 and filed a miscellaneous petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the City Civil Court, Kolkata for appointing a receiver and seizure of the vehicle wherein complainant was also arrayed as a party. It is stated that the complainant was exonerated from his liabilities vis -a -vis hire purchase agreement dated 10.04.2001 however, on 10.01.2004, the petitioner/accused instituted Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004 through the Field Officer, Mohan Singh, alleging that the complainant in connivance with others, had changed the registration number of the vehicle and sold the same to some other person. That the complainant obtained bail in the said case. This resulted in a stigma being cast on his reputation. The complainant approached the petitioner in connection with the case whereupon he was told to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as a condition for compromising the case. It is alleged that the said case was instituted with an intention to blackmail the complainant and his signature was taken on the blank forms by misrepresentation of facts by the petitioners.
(3.) ON the basis of the complaint and statement, cognizance was taken under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter the petitioner had filed an application for discharge and also for dropping the proceeding on the ground of territorial jurisdiction but the petition was rejected by order dated 18.07.2007 impugned in the Cr. Revision No. 675 of 2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bokaro and order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro impugned in Cr.M.P No. 856 of 2008.;