RAJWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Heard.

(2.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated- 1.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 101(C) of 2005, by which the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence against the petitioner alleged to be punishable under Sections 405 and 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also to quash the entire criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner.

(3.) IN the application for quashing it has been submitted that the petitioner is actually stationed at Bangalore and has been made just a proforma accused. It has also been submitted that in the whole complaint petition, there is no iota of allegation against the petitioner, rather all the allegations are against accused No. 1 Vivek Sheel and accused No. 2 Sushil Kumar Singh. With reference to the complaint petition it is pointed out that the petitioner had merely signed the settlement agreement dated.-28.6.2004 to finalise the account between complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 2 on one hand and between the complainant and accused No. 3, i.e., the petitioner on other hand. With reference to the settlement agreement (Annexure-2) it is indicated that accused Nos. 1 and 2 was to make whole payment in favour of the complainant for full and final settlement in between them. On the other hand accused No. 3 had to make certain payment and in return, the complainant, proprietor of M/s Synergy will have to despatch the stock worth Rs. 8.5 lacs be accused No. 3 lying with M/s Synergy to the firm of petitions, i.e., I.C.A.P. Bangalore. It has also been submitted that in view of above said agreement, the petitioner made payment of Rs. 1.3 lacs by different cheques, but in contravention of the above said agreement the complainant did not despatch the goods worth Rs. 8.5 lacs. It is also stated that there seems to be some disputes between the complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 2 and just to settle the score with them, the complainant made this petitioner an accused to pressurise and coerce him with a view to misappropriate the goods worth Rs. 8.5 lacs which is still in possession of the complainant. The petitioner has not issued any cheque to the complainant which is alleged to have bounced.