ARJUN NARAIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seek to quash the charge -sheet dated 15.02.2010, submitted against the applicants under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC, as also cognizance order dated 23.04.2010, as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 987 of 2010, State vs Arjun Narain, arising out of case crime no. 519 of 2009, for the self -same offences, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun.

(2.) AN FIR was lodged by the informant (respondent no. 2 herein) against accused -applicant no. 1 on 29.11.2009, at police station, Kotwali, Dehradun, which was registered as case crime no. 519 of 2009, under Section 420 of IPC. After the investigation, a charge -sheet against applicant no. 1, as also applicant no. 2 (wife of applicant no. 1), was submitted under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC. Cognizance was taken 2 on the said charge -sheet and the accused persons were summoned to face the trial for the said offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the applicants.

(3.) AS per FIR, applicant no. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,80,000/ - from respondent no. 2. When applicant no. 1 did not return said money, respondent no. 2 went to Kotwali, Dehradun in April 2009. Respondent no. 2 went there to make a request to the police to help him get repayment of the loan amount. Kotwali police directed respondent no. 2 to go to police station, Khurbura, before whom applicant no. 1 had promised to repay the loan after four months. Instead of returning the money, applicant no. 1 gave two cheques of 1,90,000/ - each to respondent no. 2. Applicant no. 1 told respondent no. 2 that the payment will be made in cash within two months and further told him to take those cheques as security. Applicant no. 1 did not make payment in cash. Applicant no. 1 further requested respondent no. 2 that he will soon arrange the money and payment will be made to him. On 15.11.2009, at 11:00 A.M., applicant no. 1 took away those cheques from respondent no. 2's wife, in his absence. When respondent no. 2 contacted respondent no. 2, he promised to give him other cheques in lieu of those cheques, which he took away from his wife, in his absence.