Ahsanuddin Amanullah JUDGMENT
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 6053 of 2013 has moved the Court for the following relief:
"That this criminal Miscellaneous application is for quashing the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by Sr. Dasrath Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint case No. 2776(C)/2006 rejecting the petition dated 7.10.2009 filed for discharge of the petitioner."
3. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 6054 of 2013 has moved the Court for the following relief:
"That this criminal Miscellaneous application is for quashing the order dated 5.9.2009 passed by Sr. Dasrath Mishra, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint case No. 2776(C)/2006 rejecting the petition dated 11.08.2009 filed for discharge of the petitioner."
4. Despite service of notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2, when the case was taken up and heard.
5. The allegation against the petitioners is that they being Directors of Magadh Coloniser Private Limited, which is a Company had neither given the flat booked in the name of the wife of the complainant nor returned the entire amount.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that firstly, the complaint itself was not maintainable in the absence of the Company being made accused as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta & Ors. reported as MANU/SC/8183/2008 : 2008 (7) Supreme 794, the relevant being at paragraph 27. It was submitted that even as per the complaint, the Opposite Party No. 2 had paid the amount to the husband of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 6054 of 2013, and, thus, no payment being taken by the petitioners, the allegation against them is malicious. Learned counsel submitted that the Company in question, upon the death of the husband of the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 6054 of 2013, had inducted the petitioners as Directors. It was further submitted that thereafter, there was an agreement between the Company and the owners of the land and others by which all the assets and liabilities of the Company were taken over by them and in the Annexure-1 of the said agreement dated 11.08.2003, by which the original development agreement dated 14.01.1998, by which the land owners had entered into an agreement with Magadh Coloniser Private Limited was cancelled, shows that the wife of the opposite party No. 2 had booked the flat at a total cost of Rs. 3,25,000/- and, thus, from that time onwards, the liability rested with the owners to make good whatever loss may have been suffered by the complainant and not the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, the issue basically boils down to money dispute, which is of civil nature and criminal proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court as the remedy lies before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported as MANU/SC/1281/2018 : 2019 (1) PLJR (SC) 215; M/s. Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd. & Ors. reported as MANU/SC/3152/2006 : (2006) 6 Supreme 66, the relevant being at paragraphs No. 9 and 10 as also in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal reported as MANU/SC/7999/2007 : 2008 (1) PLJR (SC) 82, the relevant being at parag........