JANARDAN PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABHIJIT Sinha, J.

(2.) THE sole FIR named accused of Buxar (Town) P.S. Case No. 221 of 2006 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 1.2.2007 passed therein by Sri R.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Buxar, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offence under Section 406, IPC. The informant, one Sadanand Kushwaha, impleaded herein as O.P. No. 2, on 18.7.2006 submitted written report alleging the commission of offence under Section 406, IPC by the sole named accused. It is said that the informant and the accused were on visiting terms from before due to a friendly relationship having developed between them and exchange of loans frequently took place between them. It is alleged that on 2.1.2006 the accused came to the shop of the informant and requested for a loan of Rs. 50,000/ - as he was short of that amount in purchasing the lands of one Chandrama Prasad Rai and assured to return the amount by 15.7.2006. The informant in good faith handed over a cheque bearing No. 00789 for Rs. 50,000/ - drawn on Central Bank of India, Buxar, to the accused in the presence of the witnesses named in the written report and the said cheque was also got encashed by the accused. It is said that when the informant on 16.7.2006 went to the accused and requested for the return of the amount loaned to him as he had to reimburse the loan he had taken from Punjab National Bank, the accused refused stating that he had taken many such loans from many persons none of which he had returned and the informant was free to do whether he liked.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order taking cognizance, it was submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case as the informant carried a grudge against him arising of the fact that the petitioner had sold 1/2 katha of land to one Geeta Devi in January 2006 superceeding the claim of the informant to purchase the said land as the informant was not willing to pay the demanded price. It has further been stated that in view of the false implication the petitioner had written to the Superintendent of Police, Buxur, stating there in that he had not taken any money from the informant and the signature on the cheque was not his and had been on the sly manipulated by the informant to implicate him falsely.