VINAYAK @ BINAYAK SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashment of his entire criminal proceeding arising out of P.C.R. Case No.509 of 2007, corresponding to T.R.No.146 of 2010 including the order impugned dated 20.01.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner by the S.D.J.M., Deoghar.

(2.) THE complainants story in short was that the complainant -O.P.No.2 was having friendship with the petitioner and that cordial relationship was existing from before between them. The petitioner was doing business of supply and agency of medicines and it was alleged that he asked the complainant by suggesting to start medical agency which would yield good return on investment of paltry sum of Rs.50,000/ - with the assurance that he would provide assistance in securing medical agency for him. It was further alleged that the complainant -Opposite Party No.2 having relied upon the assurance made by the petitioner, got Demand Draft No.3822697 of the State Bank of India, Jasidih prepared in favour of Wipson Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and got another Bank Draft No.382259 prepared by the same Branch in favour of Baba Bashukinath Enterprises, Ranchi and both the D/D worth Rs. 50,000/ - were delivered to the petitioner -accused obtaining his signature on the Xerox copies of each draft as token of receipt in presence of the witnesses but after lapse of time when neither agency was given nor money was returned to him in spite of his repeated requests and reminders the complainant O.P.No.2 then finally sent a legal notice to the petitioner on 06.03.2007. The petitioner -accused then requested the complainant to grant him some time till 27th June, 2007 for repayment of the amount which was given to him securing the agency but since the petitioner denied having accepted such amount at the later stage the complainant filed the complaint for the alleged offence under Sections 419/420 of the Indian Penal Code. After enquiry of the complaint, the S.D.J.M. found a prima facie case against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly summons were directed to be issued against the petitioner -accused which is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) SIMILARLY , the Proprietor of "Maa Tara Pharmaceuticals, M. Chatterjee Lane, Deoghar presented Demand Draft No.382260 of Rs.25,000/ - being the part payment of medicines supplied to him by the Wipson Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi and the same was received against the receipt No.501 and therefore both the Demand Drafts (or Bank drafts) claimed to be drawn by the complainant were issued to two different firms and the same were received by the respective firms and accordingly medicines were supplied to the drawer "Maa Tara Pharmaceuticals, M. Chatterjee Lane, Deoghar and therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was not sustainable thus it would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.