RAMZAN ALI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 27.9.2001 passed by Shri S.P. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Bokaro at Chas in Complaint Case No. 274 of 2001 whereby and whereunder the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief as stated is that the complainant Karim Mohammad was an employee of Bokaro Steel Limited in Bokaro Steel Plant and was working in the same department as well as residing in the same locality along with the accused persons and having good relationship. The complainant retired from his service and received Rs. 3,00,000/ - (Rupees three lacs) from Bokaro Steel Limited. The said money was invested for purchasing land at Chas and for opening shop for his son out of which Rs. 1,00,000/ - (Rupees one lac) was invested in Sahara India by purchasing a fixed deposit on 31.12.1997 for a period of three years. The accused also demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/ -as a friendly loan for six months. The complainant transferred the fixed deposit certificate of Sahara India on 15.7.2000 amounting to Rs. 69,000/ - which includes Rs. 50,000/ -as principal amount. As per the assurance given by the accused/petitioner, he has not returned the money even after the expiry of April, 2001, Thereafter again on 21.8.2001, the complainant approached the accused person at his residence but the petitioner refused to return the money and also abused him. The complainant came to learn that the petitioner placed forged document stating therein that the complainant had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/ - from the petitioner on 25.6.2000 and, accordingly, the complaint case was filed. After enquiry made under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned court below took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner by the order impugned.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party contended before me that there is no illegality in the order impugned and the learned court below after finding prima facie case passed the order impugned.