ABINASH KUMAR OJHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 27.1.2010 passed in connection with Jamtara P.S. Case no. 31 of 2009 (G.R No. 78of 2009) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act has been taken against the petitioner and others.

(2.) THE case of the complainant/informant is that the accused no. 1 Nagendra Prasad Ojha, father of the petitioner and also this petitioner made representation before the complainant that they are intending to sell a piece of land over which one incomplete room is existing. The complainant in order to verify the said fact came to the house of the accused no. 1 where the accused no. 1 again communicated to the complainant that they are intending to sell that piece of land having incomplete structure over there, upon which a sum of Rs. 1,72,000/ - was paid to the father of this petitioner but subsequently, accused no. 1, father of this petitioner never executed sale deed and when the complainant asked them to return the money, they not only refused to return the money but also declined to execute the sale deed. However, upon much insistence the accused no. 1 gave Rs. 1,72,000/ - which on its deposit got bounced. Thereafter demand was made through notice and when it was not paid, a complaint bearing P.C.R case no. 45 of 2009 was registered under Sections 420, 406, 120B), 468 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The complaint was sent under Section 156(3) for its institution and investigation. Upon which Jamtara P.S. Case no. 31 of 2009 was registered. Having investigated upon, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken which order is under challenge.

(3.) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 submits that this petitioner and also his father when on representing that they will be selling a piece of land, the complainant agreed to purchase the said land and for that a sum of Rs. 1,72,000/ - was paid to the father of this petitioner and this fact has been stated by number of witnesses, who were examined during course of investigation. Under this situation, the petitioner cannot escape liability for being prosecuted under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.