RAVI KUMAR @ RAVI CHOURASIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.

(2.) THE opposite party No.2 has not appeared in spite of notice. On the last date i.e., on 24.8.2012, the opposite party No.2 had appeared in person and on the prayer of the opposite party No. 2, and with the agreement of both the parties, this case was fixed for today, making it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case, but in spite thereof, the opposite party No.2 has not appeared in this case.

(3.) IT also appears that subsequent to filing of this F.I.R , a complaint case No. 1638 of 2010 was filed by the same informant namely, Manoranjan Prasad Sinha in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and in the said complaint case, only Dilip Kumar has been made accused. According to the said complaint petition, the said complainant has stated that he had paid Rs.8,90,000/- to Dilip Kumar, being a middle man for settlement of the sale of the land and it was also stated that when the land was not sold to the complainant, the said accused, Dilip Kumar had issued a cheque of Rs.8,85,000/- in favour of the complainant on 20.7.2010. IT is the case of the complainant that rupees one Lakh was returned to the complainant in cash by the said accused, Dilip Kumar. The said complaint case was filed in view of the fact that the cheque had been dishonored.