RAJIV GUPTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for quashing the order dated 11.2.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Giridih in T.R. No. 612 of 2006 whereby he took cognizance of offence under section 406, 420 and 120 B of the IPC and also for quashing the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-IV, Giridih in Cr. Revision No. 93 of 2006 whereby aforesaid order dated 11.2.2004, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, had been confirmed.

(2.) It appears that a complaint petition filed in the court of learned CJM, Giridih stating therein that petitioner is Proprietor and Manager of Kaptan Hygiene Products Ltd and complainant was stockist of said company at Giridih. It is further stated that the petitioner's company was manufacturing washing soap. It is alleged that aforesaid company owe a sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- of complainant. It is then alleged that the accused/petitioner, with a view to cheat complainant made a telephonic call and asked him to come to their Delhi office with advance money for one truck of goods. It is further stated that during the said telephonic conversation , accused person promised to settle the pending claims of the complainant. It is further stated that complainant believed on aforesaid telephonic conversation and prepared five Demand Draft of Rs. 1,80,000/- from UCO Bank, Giridih . Thereafter on 30.5.2002 went to the Delhi office of accused persons along with witness Pawan Kumar Pilania. It is further stated that in the Delhi office, accused person settled part of the claim of complainant (to the extent of Rs. 83,750/- )and promised that the rest claim would be settled later on. It is further alleged that on that date itself, petitioner asked complainant to deposit money so that one truck of goods can be sent to the complainant. Believing on the promise made by the accused/petitioner, complainant handed over Rs. 1,80,000/- through five bank drafts and took receipt thereof. It is then alleged that thereafter complainant returned to Giridih, but the consignment never reached. Later on, complainant came to know that the petitioner had closed their factory from before 30.5.2002 and same fact was concealed by petitioner. Thus accused/petitioner had intention to deceive the complainant from before and by doing so they cheated complainant and took Rs. 1,80,000/- from him. Accordingly, it is alleged that the offence under section 420, 406 read with section 120B of the IPC is made out against the accused/petitioner.

(3.) It appears that complainant examined himself on S.A. and also examined witnesses in support of his case. The learned judicial magistrate after considering the materials prima facie come to the conclusion that the offences under section 420, 406 read with section 120 B of the IPC are made out accordingly vide order dated 11.2.2004 he took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the accused/petitioner.