PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The quashing application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging order dated 29.1.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No.198 of 2008 whereby he has taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881.

(2.) The complainant's case as narrated in the complaint petition in brief is that on 14.4.2008, the accused/petitioner entered into a contract with the complainant who deals in bamboo business for supplying bamboos more than 2000 in numbers and ballas for the period 14.4.2008 to 25.4.2008 the total value of hired article is 1,20,050/- the rent for hired period was fixed Rs.13,000/-. On 14.4.2008 on the day of entering into contract the accused paid Rs.3,000/- in cash against the rent amount and a cheque of Rs.25,000/- for payment of rest rent amount with assurance to pay rest rental charges in cash on 25.4.2008, thereafter, the cheque would be returned back to him; even after expiry of the period neither hired articles were returned back to him nor rent was paid in cash so he presented the cheque earlier given to him by the accused in his Bank on 2.6.2008 but cheque was dishonoured and returned back to the complainant on 24.6.2008 with remark that amount could not be credited due to insufficient fund in the account of borrower. Consequently, on 2.7.2008 complainant sent legal notice to the accused to pay the cheque amount to him which was received by him on 8.7.2008 but within 15 days the amount was not paid back so filed the complaint case on 23.7.2008.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that false allegation has been levelled in the complaint, the rent of the hired articles was only Rs.3,600/- out of which Rs.3000/- was paid in cash only Rs.600/- remained due. As far as issuance of cheque of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, that was given to the complainant as a security. It is also contended that the desired number of bamboos and ballas were not supplied and the supplied articles were returned back to the complainant, so in fact the petitioner was cheated by the complainant. The petitioner requested to return the cheque given in security but it was not returned so he filed a complaint case no.887 of 2008 on 9.6.2008 prior to the filing of the present complaint, so no prima facie case under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. and 138 of N.I. Act is made out.