MUNESHWAR RAJAK SON OF LATE BHATTU RAJAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND RAJIV KUMAR SON OF RAM NANDAN PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 24.01.2000 passed by Shri B.P. Singh, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1151C of 1999. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that opposite party No. 2, who claims to be an Advocate, filed a complaint case which was registered as Complaint Case No. 1151C of 1999 alleging therein that the petitioner who was a retired Government servant approached the complainant for purchasing a jeep of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was alleged that the petitioner paid only Rs. 40,000/- and, thereafter, the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner. It was assured by the petitioner that the rest amount would be subsequently paid to the complainant. However, the petitioner dishonestly did not make payment of entire sale proceed and, accordingly, on such allegation, the complaint was filed. After conducting enquiry, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 24.01.2000 took cognizance of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 18.10.2001, while issuing notice to opposite party No. 2, this Court directed that till any order is passed, further proceeding in Case No. 1151C of 1999 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna shall remain stayed. Despite service of notice, opposite party No. 2 did not choose to appear and, as such, on 19.02.2002, the case was admitted for hearing and this Court directed that pending final hearing of this application, interim order dated 18.10.2001 shall remain operative. While admitting this case, this Court also directed for issuance of notice to opposite Party No. 2 under registered cover with A/D as also under ordinary course. Despite issuance and service of notice on opposite party No. 2 again, opposite party No. 2 preferred not to appear in the present case.