JAGDISH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the criminal miscellaneous applications were heard together as the parties and the matter under consideration are same and similar and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Both the applications have been filed under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders dated 23-11-1998 and 8-3-1999 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in C/1 Case No. 714 of 1998 and C/1 Case No. 790 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the orders passed for issuance of summons against the petitioner for the offence under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and S. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The short facts giving rise to these applications are that a complaint case was filed by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 stating therein that they were appointed by the petitioner as carrying and forwarding agent to deliver Himalaya Mineral Water and accordingly they worked and also took godown on rent for the purpose of keeping articles. The petitioner paid Account Payee Cheque dated 15-7-1998 for Rs. 55,330/- but the said cheque could not be encashed by the Bank due to insufficient fund. It is also claimed that there was an agreement dated 2-3-1998 on the basis of which the petitioner has appointed opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as Carrying and Forwarding Agent. In between 11-4-1998 to 20-5-1998, the petitioner had sent five trucks of Himalayan Mineral Water and as per the instructions of the petitioner, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 delivered one truck load of the said mineral water to the consignee whereas the remaining four trucks load of the said consignment are still lying in the godown taken on rent by the complainant/opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. On entering into the agreement, the petitioner induced the complainant/opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to part with a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lacs) as security amount towards the performance of the said agreement dated 2-3-1998 and the petitioner also assured that he will pay interest per annum over the said amount and, accordingly, the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 parted with their earned money a sum of Rupees five lacs, but the petitioner was avoiding to pay the commission and freight