N M KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code. in short} for quashing order dated 16/12/1995 recorded by a Judicial Magistrate of first Class, at Patna in Case No. 1003 (C) of 1995 which was filed by Opposite Party No. 2. Capt. Uday Kumar Dixit. whereby and where under the learned Magistrate after enquiry under Section 202 of the Code found a prima jade case made out against the petitioner and other accused under Sections 406. 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the accused to face the trial as also to quash the entire criminal proceeding arising out of the aforesaid case.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the complainant who had entered into business approached accused No. 1. A.K Sinha who was in business of arranging finance against immovable properties for grant of loan of 25 lacs and was assured by A.K Sinha that the loan could be managed with Senthil Financier and Builders. Madras (T1the Company in short) with the proper sureties and charged from him Rs. 25.000/- as his commission. This petitioner is said to be the Managing Partner of the aforesaid Company who as alleged sent a latter dated 11/5/1994 asking the complainant to deposit Rs. 1.20.300/- by draft to enable the company to complete with the formalities of registration etc. However allegation is that accused A. K. Sinha and accused No. 4. Mr. Arumugam inspected the property of the complainant at Jamshedpur at which time Arumugam demanded a sum of Rs. 10.000/- for giving a proper report which was also paid to him. The complainant accordingly sent a draft of Rs. 1,20,300/- to the petitioner and thereafter the complainant received intimation from accused No. 3. 5. Subramaniam. Chief Trustee of MAM Annamalayar Trust, intimating that the loan would be paid on 4/7/1994. However, the payment continued to be deferred from time to time on the pretext that account of the company had been sealed by the Enforcement Directorate, FERA Board.

(3.) Allegation is that on 20/2/1995 the complainant signed a receipt of Rs. 10 lakhs at the behest of this petitioner and the accused person handed over a post dated cheque to him informing the complainant that the connected account was not seized by Enforcement Directorate hut when the cheque was deposited it is bounced back on the ground that the account was so frozen.