SUJEET KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The present application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code'), for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 27.6.2005 by the learned S.D.J.M., Purnea in C.A. No. 628 of 2003 under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) As per the complaint petition the opposite party no. 2 (complainant) had arranged for and given a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner on his request for opening of S.T.D. booths. The said money is said to have been given to the petitioner in the District of Purnea in August, 2001. Thereafter it is stated that the petitioner had agreed to return the money, since he had arranged for the same, and in that view of the matter and also because of the earlier relationship between the parties, no receipt was taken. Later on the opposite party no. 2 issued two separate cheques of Rs. 2,00,000/- each on 24.12.2002 and 28.12.2002 in favour of the complainant but on presentation to the Bank the same was returned due to insufficient funds in the account. The said cheques were presented on 29.1.2003 and were drawn on Allahabad Bank, Sheikhpura in the District of Patna. They were presented on 29.1.2003 in the Canara Bank Branch at Raja Bazar, Patna in which opposite party no. 2 had his account. It is stated that both the cheques remained uncashed and the Bank sent a report on 30.1.2003 in this regard which was received alongwith the dishonored cheques by opposite party no. 2 on 8.2.2003 from Canara Bank. It is stated that the opposite party no. 2 then went to the petitioner who assured that he will put sufficient money in his account and the cheques would be honoured and accordingly, again on 15.2.2003 when the complaint went to enquire whether there was sufficient funds in the account he was informed that no money has been deposited. Thereafter, it is said that a written notice dated 19.2.2003 was sent to the petitioner, but the same was not replied to. It is further stated that in April, 2003, the petitioner came to the complainant (opposite party no. 2) and asked him to deposit the cheque which was so done on 5.5.2003 but the cheque bounced on 6.5.2003 and similarly It was again presented on 10.6.2003 but again bounced en 12,6.2003.