Om Prakash Kesari @ Arbind Kumar … vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 August, 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.8021 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -3 Year- 2011 Thana -HASANPUR District- SAMASTIPUR

Om Prakash Kesari @ Arbind Kumar Kesari Son of Late Jagarnath Kesari Resident
of Village / Mohalla – Bishwanath Nagar, P.S.- Begusarai, District – Begusarai
…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Nishant Agarwal Son of Rajendra Agrawal Priprietor M/S Ganpati Traders,
Hasanpur Road, P.S.- Hasanpur, District – Samastipur
…. …. Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. C. Sen Pd. Singh, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 23-08-2017

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 07.09.2013, passed

by ACJM, Rosera at Samastipur in Hasanpur P.S. Case No.03 of 2011 whereby

the learned ACJM, Rosera at Samastipur has taken cognizance under Sections

406/34 IPC.

2. The petitioner is one of the accused in the aforesaid police case

and allegation is that he introduced complainant to one another accused Abdul

Jamil, proprietor of Abdul Agro Product Pvt. Ltd., Chiknauta. The petitioner also

introduced the complainant to two other accused, namely, Abdul Satar and Abdul

Amirul who are the nephew of Abdul Jamil. They purchased maize from the shop

of the complainant worth Rs.l,94,800.28/- and only paid Rs.32,000/- in cash and

the rest amount was to be paid within two months but the same was not paid.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as this

petitioner is concerned, there is no any entrustment made by the complainant to

him. The maize was purchased by other accused persons. Only allegation is that

he introduced them to the complainant so if the entire allegation is taken into
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8021 of 2014 dt.23-08-2017

2 /2

account against the petitioner, no prima facie case of breach of trust is made out

against him, whatever the liability of making payment is that is with the

purchasers.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the

State supports the impugned order.

5. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of records, it

is evident that only allegation against the petitioner is of introducing the

complainant with accused persons who are purchasers of the maize from the firm

of the complainant so it is not the case that maize was delivered to the petitioner

rather it was delivered directly to the purchaser so there is no any entrustment of

any property with the petitioner; so taking into consideration the entire allegation

against the petitioner in particular, no prima facie case under Section 406 IPC is

made out against him.

6. In the result, the order of cognizance dated 07.09.2013, passed

by the ACJM, Rosera at Samastipur in Hasanpur P.S. Case No.03 of 2011 with

respect to the petitioner, namely, Om Prakash Kesari @ Arbind Kumar Kesari and

subsequent criminal proceeding only against him is set aside.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Arun Kumar, J.)

S.Kumar/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 25.08.2017
Transmission 25.08.2017
Date

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *