PATNA, India, March 4 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 2:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2/complainant.

2. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 09.02.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 3016(C) of 2017, instituted by Opposite Party No. 2, namely Rekha Kumari.

3. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2/complainant, which was duly served and she has appeared before this Court.

4. The case of the Opposite Party No. 2, in brief, is that in the year 2015 she had taken a shop situated at A.G. Colony, Patna, on rent from the petitioner after allegedly paying a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs on two different dates and advance rent of Rs. 24,000/-. It is alleged that after carrying out false ceiling and rack work and keeping garments worth about Rs. 10 lakhs in the said shop, a dispute arose between the parties, whereafter both the parties put their own locks on the shop. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently broke open the lock and committed theft of the articles kept therein. On the alleged inaction of the police, the present complaint was filed on 07.08.2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire complaint case is false, concocted and an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the complainant herself has stated in the complaint petition that the police did not register her case, whereas Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 355 of 2015 had already been registered on the basis of information given by the Opposite Party No. 2 for the same set of facts and cause of action.

6. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid police case, the petitioner had filed a discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. which was rejected vide order dated 17.03.2018 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna. The said order was challenged before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 28532 of 2018, and this Court, vide order dated 04.05.2023, allowed the application and quashed the proceedings. Despite the same, the complainant has again initiated the present complaint case on identical facts, which is impermissible in law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, arising out of a landlord-tenant relationship. The petitioner is the undisputed owner of the shop and the criminal colour has been deliberately given to the dispute only to harass the petitioner. It is further contended that the complaint petition does not disclose any material to prima-facie constitute the offence of theft under Section 379 IPC.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiM5NTcxIzIwMjQjMSNO-UA--am1--7a--ak1--uAmxU=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.