AWADHESH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS is an application for quashing the order dated 14.9.2006 passed in Complaint Case No. 2131 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Katihar, having taken cognizance under Ss. 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had issued summons against the petitioner for facing trial after noticing that there were sufficient materials to indicate that the petitioner, the Managing Director of Sun Plant Agro Finance Limited had committed cheating and the cheque issued for a sum of Rs.55,000.00 in favour of the complainant -opposite party no. 2 had bounced. Reference may be made to the earlier order of this Court dated 28.9.2007 in this very proceedings. It would appear from the aforementioned order that when opposite party no. 2 in his counter -affidavit had pointed out as with regard to institution of two parallel proceedings against the same impugned order taking cognizance dated 14.9.2007 in complaint] case no. 2131 of 2005 in the form of a Cri. Revision application, being Cri. Revision No. 176 of 2006 filed on 9.10.2006 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Katihar, and this quashing application (Cri. Misc. No. 48447 of 2006) filed on 16.11.2006, the petitioner was asked to explain as to under what circumstances he had filed the present quashing application on 16.11.2006 when he had already filed a Cri. Revision application against the same impugned order vide Cri. Revision No. 176 of 2006 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Katihar. He was further asked to explain as to why this fact was not mentioned in the quashing application which was filed on 16.11.2006 that he had already moved the Court of District & Sessions Judge by filing a Cri. Revision application on 9.10.2006 against the same order.

(3.) THE petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit wherein filing of the Cri. Revision application by him on 9.10.2006 against the same impugned order, which is the subject matter of this quashing application filed on 16.11.2006 has not been controverted. It has also not been mentioned as to why the filing of the said Cri. Revision application was not mentioned in the present quashing application. On the other hand, all that has been sought to be explained is that the Cri. Revision No. 176 of 2006 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 1.9.2007 after filing of the present quashing application. It has also been stated that an application for withdrawing the revision application was filed on 19.7.2007 but the same could not be pressed on account of illness of the counsel for the petitioner, namely, Sri Ranvijay Prasad Singh and therefore, the application which was filed for withdrawal of the revision application on 19.7.2007 got disposed of on 1.9.2007.