SAMIR MUKHERJEE @ SAMEER MURKRJEE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole named accused of Complaint Case No. 1636(C) of 2004 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 4.9.2004 passed therein by Sri Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offences under Sections 406 and 418 I.P.C. as also Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act')

(2.) ONE Manoranjan Kumar Singh, impleaded herein as Opp. Party No. 2, filed the aforesaid Complaint on 17.7.2004 inter alia alleging the commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. as also Section 138 N.I. Act by the accused petitioner from 22.5.2004 onwards. According to the complainant, he was introduced to the accused by his cousin, Om Prakash Singh, residing in Durgapur. The accused introducing himself as business associate of Ajit Singh and Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') with his sweet talk induced the complainant to invest some money in the company on the plea that for an investment of Rs. 1,90,000/ - for some period he would get a return of Rs. 2,30,000/ -. Accordingly, the complainant in good faith invested a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/ - during the end of 2003 but following the investment the complainant felt being ignored by the Company whereupon with the help of his cousin, Om Prakash Singh, he persuaded the accused to return the amount invested by him. Accordingly, Cheque No. 193691 dated 2.5.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/ -and Cheque No. 193692 for Rs. 1,20,000/ - drawn on Central Bank of India, Mamrabazar, Durgapur Branch, signed by the accused were issued in favour of the complainant. It is alleged that the cheques on presentation were dishonoured by the said Bank due to insufficient funds and were returned on 22.5.2004 to the complainant's Bank who in turn informed the complainant. It is said that a legal notice dated 19.6.2004 was sent to the accused demanding the money and not to cheat him. In reply the accused requested the complainant not to present the cheques for encashment for some period. The complainant apprehending being cheated was compelled to file the complaint.

(3.) IT has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Ajit Singh, the other partner, having fallen ill with the dreaded disease of Cancer was admitted to hospital and died in the year, 2004 and resultant of the illness of Ajit Singh, business operation of the Company had been stopped and when the complainant came to know about the state of affairs of the business of the Company, he requested for refund of the capital amount of Rs. 1,90,000/ - invested by him. Initially, it is said, the petitioner refused to pay the amount, whereupon the complainant requested that since the money invested belonged to his father, therefore, only for his mental satisfaction, cheques should be issued by him. It is further submitted that in satisfying the request of the complainant, two cheques were issued in the name of the complainant on the sole condition that the said cheques would not be presented in the Bank since the liability to pay the said amount, if any, is upon the firm and not on the petitioner. Nevertheless, notwithstanding having given assurances the complainant came to Patna and deposited the said cheques in his Bank for encashment which admittedly were dishonoured due to insufficient balance.