JAWED ALAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P appearing for the State and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing of order taking cognizance dtd. 11/10/2018 including entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 390/2018 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Lohardaga.

(3.) The complainant has filed complaint alleging therein that the O.P. No. 2 being a partner of a brick kiln namely Sagar Bricks was known to the petitioner from before as the petitioner used to supply coal in the brick kiln to O.P. No. 2. It is alleged that on 4/4/2016 the petitioner requested the O.P. No. 2 to manage a sum of Rs.30.00 lakhs as he was in dire need of money and assured the O.P. No. 2 that the said amount shall be returned by the month of June, 2016 else the amount would be adjusted by supplying coal of the said amount in the brick kiln of the O.P. No. 2. It is further alleged that the O.P. No. 2 in good faith gave friendly loan to O.P. No. 2 amounting to Rs.30.00 lakhs against the said amount, the petitioner handed over two post dated cheques worth Rs.15.00 lakhs each to the O.P. No. 2. It is further alleged that although the time frame for making the payment of the loan amount by the petitioner ended yet he did not pay a single farthing to the O.P. No. 2 for which he was constrained to present the cheque before his bank for clearance. After presentation of the said cheques, both the cheques become dishonoured. Thereafter the O.P. No. 2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner which returned unserved with endorsement (refused to take). Thereafter a complaint petition being Complaint Case No. 221/2016 has been filed under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act in which the petitioner vide judgment dtd. 2/6/2017 has been convicted and against the said conviction the petitioner moved in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Lohardaga being Cr. Appeal No. 44/2017 and the said appeal was allowed and the judgement of conviction was set aside and the petitioner was discharged from all criminal liabilities. Against the order of acquittal the O.P. No. 2 again moved Criminal Revision which was dismissed as withdrawn by the O.P. No. 2 and after withdrawal of the criminal revision, the present Complaint Case No. 390/2018.