DEEPAK SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 2.5.1998 passed by Shri J. N. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Motihari, in Complaint Case No. 94/98 taking cognizance of offence under sections 420 and 406 IPC and issuing summon against the petitioner. Opposite party no. 2, the complainant of Complaint Case No. 94/98 has not appeared inspite of service of notice.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint petition in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, against the petitioner and others under sections 403, 406, 420, 120E3, 468 and 469 of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that the petitioner and other co -accused persons claiming themselves to be the Director, Regional Manager and Accountant etc. of a non -banking company i.e. Maya Forestry India Limited were carrying on their business by way of forged and fabricated documents in order to cheat the public at Muzaffarpur and in the month of August, 1886 they opened office of the aforesaid company at Motihari and in order to cheat the public they gave inducement to the public for opening account with their company and they started appointing agents for their Motihari Branch. Believing the petitioner and other co -accused persons, some persons who were appointed as agents of the company started collecting money from the public and thereafter coaccused Manoj Kumar gave a proposal to opposite party no. 2 for opening account with the company and working as an agent and on 29.10.96 opposite party no. 2 was appointed as an agent of the Company. Through opposite party no.2 some persons opened their account and thereafter opposite party no.2 was appointed as senior agent by letter dated 7.12.96. After it, the brother of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 himself opened their own account with the company and deposited money. Thereafter the office of the company at Motihari was found locked and when opposite party no.2 made search for co -accused Manoj Kumar Verma who was Regional Manager of Motihari Branch, he could not get clue of him. Opposite party no.2 also went to Muzaffarpur where the Head Office of the company was located but there also he found that the office of the company was locked. The complaint petition of petitioner was numbered as Complaint Case No. 94/98. It appears that an inquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. on the complaint of opposite party no.2 was con - ducted during which four witnesses on behalf of opposite party no.2 were examined and learned Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of the case against the petitioner and other co -accused persons named in the complaint petition and ordered for issue of summons.

(3.) SO far the objection raised by the petitioner that no specific allegation against him has been made either in the complaint petition or in the evidence of witnesses examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. I find that name of petitioner is clearly mentioned in the column of accused persons and it is also stated in the complaint petition that all the accused persons named in the complaint petition were running a non -banking company named as Maya Forestry India Limited in order to cheat the public and they opened a branch office at Motihari. It is true that in the complaint petition it is stated that co -accused Manoj Kumar made a proposal to opposite party no.2 for becoming the agent of the company at Motihari but then at the same time opposite party no.2 in the complaint petition has stated that when he saw that on the inducement given by the accused persons some persons opened their account in the company and he was issued a letter appointing him as Senior Agent he also opened account in the branch of the company. In the evidence of witnesses examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. witnesses have said that the officers of the company gave inducement to them for opening account and on this inducement they opened account. It is true that witnesses have not been able to give the names of all the officers of the company but then they all have stated that branch of the company was opened at Motihari and they on the inducement given by the accused persons opened their account and thereafter the company disappeared with their money.