INDER MOHAN SONI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Cr. M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 5.5.2001 passed in Complaint Case No. 314 of 2001 whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial for the offences punishable under Section 420/406 IPC.

(2.) THE facts reveal from the complaint filed by opposite party No. 2 in brief is that he had taken loan of Rs.1 Lakh from the accused persons and he was asked to repay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/ - including the interest and principal amount. At the instruction of accused persons the complainant/opposite party No. 2 had issued three cheques -first for Rs.50,000/ - second for Rs.10,000/ - and third one for Rs.75,000/ - against repayment of principal as well as the interest as demanded by the petitioners. The dates were also given on those cheques i.e. 12.11.1998 the 14.11.1998 and 25.11.1998 respectively. On 18.1.1999 the complainant/opposite party No. 2 received a legal notice at his Jamshedpur address by which a sum of Rs.1,35,000/ - with interest @ 15% per month was demanded. After receiving said notice the complainant/opposite party No. 2 surprised and arranged Rs.90,000/ - and obtained a demand draft from UCO Bank. Mango Jamshedpur payable at Allahabad and handed over the said demand draft to accused No. 1. On the next occasion i.e. in the month of February, 1999 the accused No. 1 demanded balance sum or Rs.45,000 plus 15,000/ - more and he was not willing to receive only Rs.45,000/ - which was actually due. Thereafter the complainant arranged Rs.60,000/ - and deposited in the account at J and K Bank. Allahabad Branch it is further alleged that the accused No.2 in collusion with accused No. 1 withdrew a sum of Rs.50,000/ - by depositing the cheque which the complainant had given to him at the time he had taken loan. Even after clearance of the amount the accused persons did not return rest two cheques and misused the same by depositing cheque of Rs.75,000/ - in his account for encashment. Since the cheques given in security to the accused have been misused a Complaint Case No. 314 of 2001 was lodged and after enquiry the impugned order had been passed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State has appeared but counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is absent.