AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prashant Kumar, J.—This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.09.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 875 of 2004, whereby he took cognizance against Petitioners for the offence u/s 418 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is submitted by Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that there is no allegation that these Petitioners committed any offence within the territorial jurisdiction of Dhanbad. It is submitted that though at paragraph No. 9 of the complaint petition, it is mentioned that on 13.06.2004, all accused persons came to Dhanbad, but they refused to pay due amount to the complainant. But the said statement has not been supported by complainant in his S/A. It is submitted that at paragraph No. 15 of S/A, complainant had specifically stated that on 13.06.2004, Personal Manager came to Dhanbad with his personal work and he refused to pay the amount. It is submitted that Personal Manager has not been made accused in this case. It is submitted that Petitioners are residents of Hyderabad and Gurgaon (Haryana). The aforesaid two places are not within the jurisdiction of Dhanbad court, hence the order of cognizance is bad in law.
On the other hand, Sri Niranjan, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 2 submitted that in the complaint petition, it is mentioned that Petitioners had refused to pay money at Dhanbad, therefore, Dhanbad court has jurisdiction to try the present case.
Having heard the submission, I have gone through the record of the case. In the complaint petition, it is mentioned that on 13.06.2004, accused persons came to Dhanbad with their official work and complainant met them and requested to pay his due amount, but they refused to pay the same. However, from perusal of S/A, I find that aforesaid fact has not been supported by complainant. At paragraph No. 15 of S/A, he has stated that Personal Manager of the company came to Dhanbad with his personal work and during that period complainant requested him to pay his money, which was refused by him. It further appears that dispute between the parties is with respect to payment of due salary and overtime amount. But in the complaint petition itself at paragraph No. 4, it is mentioned that complainant after receiving his salary had given receipt to accused persons. He also admits that there is no agreement between the parties regarding payment of money for overtime work.
From perusal of entire complaint petition and statement of complainant on S/A, I find offence of mischief as defined u/s 415 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. Moreover, Dhanbad court has no jurisdiction to try the present case.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this application allowed and impugned order dated 04.09.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 875 of 2004 is quashed.