D.P. Singh, J.@mdashHeard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner Dr. Jai Kumar Singh against the order dated 21.4.2006 by which his prayer for discharge has been refused by the trial court in complaint case No. 711 of 2002.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the entire complaint case was misconceived and false and concocted. It is further submitted that the complainant O.P. No. 2 has brought this case just to pressurize the petitioner for wrongful gain. In this context. My attention was drawn towards the order dated 24.10.2007 passed by this Bench by which the O.P. No. 2 having appeared preferred not to file any counter affidavit and failed to bring on record the copy of the demand drafts by which he has handed over money to the petitioner from his own funds.
4. Accordingly, the learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is being dragged unnecessarily in the present case who has validly transferred the land in question. As such, the impugned order be set aside and the present petition allowed.
5. The learned APP opposed.
No one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.
6. Perused the materials on record. The complainant produced an agreement for sale of land admitting certain payments by the petitioner. However the factum that two bank drafts of Rs. 25,000/- each were handed over to petitioner has not been brought on record in spite of the direction of this Bench dated 24.10.2007.
7. Further, I find that if an agreement has not been honoured by the petitioner as alleged by the O.P. No. 2, he has got other remedy available for refund of the amount. Only grievance raised in the complaint petition by O.P. No. 2 is that the petitioner did not perform his par of agreement. Apparently the dispute is of civil nature regarding non fulfillment of the contract or condition of the contract where other remedy is available.
8. The law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court in
While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is teen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of marriage/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.
9. Accordingly, I find that the present revision petition has got merit in it and deserves to be allowed.
10. In the result, the order dated 21.4.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 711 of 2002 is hereby set aside.
