RAFIQUL HASAN AKRAMALI SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Deepak Kr. Bharati, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

(2.) The present petition has been filed for quashing entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No. 2265 of 2013, including order taking cognizance dtd. 12/11/2013 passed in connection with Complaint Case No. 2265 of 2013, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi.

(3.) O.P. No. 2 has filed complaint alleging therein that complainant is a publishing company and the accused persons who are directors on behalf of their company gave orders for publication of materials in Complainant's News Paper Prabhat Khabar pursuant to which the complainant published the same in its Newspaper Prabhat Khabar and demanded Rs.15,00,000.00 from the accused persons against the publication done for them. The accused persons in discharge of his liability given Cheque no. 893933 dtd. 24/7/2013, HDFC Bank Ranchi for sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 which the complainant presented through its banker State Bank of India. However, the above noted cheque stood dishonored by the bank on account of the reason' Fund Insufficient' indicated in the State Bank of India note dtd. 29/7/2013. It is further alleged that the accused made telephone call to the complainant's company secretary in the office at Ranchi and verbally informed the complainant's company secretary in the presence of other employees of the complainant who heard the conversation over speaker phone of company secretary that though he had received the notice but he shall not make payment of the amount claimed from him by the said notice. It is further alleged that in view of the specific refusal on the part of accused persons to make payment of amount indicated in the cheque issued by them in discharge of their liability the accused persons have therefore rendered themselves liable to be punished under the law. On the basis of these allegations, complaint was filed against two persons including the petitioner.