SACHIDA NAND PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

(2.) The petitioner would be aggrieved by the order dated 8.8.2003 taking cognizance under sections 406 and 420 of the Penal Code as also Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act inter alia against the petitioner in Complaint Case No. 417 of 2003.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that as per allegations the money in question is stated to have been paid to accused no. 2 and not to the petitioner. The cheques for return of the loan allegedly given to the complainant by accused no. 1 were signed and delivered by accused no. 1. The said cheques issued by accused no. 1 are stated to be dishonoured. The only allegation against the present petitioner would be that he allegedly persuaded the complainant to give the loan in question to accused no. 1 failing which the agency of "Tata Salt" of accused no. 1 would be in peril and that loan so given had been misappropriated by accused no. 1 in conspiracy with the present petitioner.