BRAJESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This matter relates to quashing the order dated 5.4.2005 where by and whereunder the prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 5.4.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda in Protest-cum-Complaint Case No. 1266 C of 2004 under Sections 4o6 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code by which he has issued summons against the petitioner and other accused for their appearance.

(2.) A complaint petition was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif against the petitioner and co-accused Jitendra Singh stating therein that the petitioner, who was posted as Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department in the office of the Chief Engineer, Ranchi (Jharkhand) and accused No. 2, Jitendra Singh, who is contractor at Jamshedpur and does constructs on work in the name of Tushar Constructions, used to contact for giving service to the other persons. The complainant, Opposite party No. 2 runs a shop, namely, Ajanta Lather and Singer Store at Mohalla Ramchandrapur, Bihar Sharif where both the accused persons including the petitioner used to come and this petitioner told the complainant, Opposite Party No. 2, for his service in the Irrigation Department on payment of 4 Laces Rupees. Accused No. 2, non-petitioner, also gave an understanding that if the work of giving service will not be done, the money will be refunded. A sum of Rs. 4 laces was given by the complainant to the petitioner on the understanding that Raj Kumari Chaudhary, wife of the complainant, would be given service. The aforesaid amount was paid through Bank Draft and the accused persons also took signature of the wife of the complainant, Raj Kumari Chaudhary, and Rajendra Pd. Chaudhary on blank papers. When the complainant felt that the accused persons had cheated him, she requested the petitioner and accused No. 2 to return the money on which an amount of Rs. 1 lac 16 thousand was returned. In the complaint petition the allegation is that the rest amount of Rs. 2 lacs and 84 thousand have not been returned to the complainant.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner is that the complainant used to do contract work with accused No. 2, Jitendra and he hag been taking money through cheque and cash which the complainant has deposited for contract work. THE petitioner relied upon the supervision note, Annexures-2 and 2/1 in which in course of supervision the case was found to be false.