EKRAMUL GHANI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated. 1-2-2001 passed in C/1 Case No. 423 of 2000, whereby the petitioner has been directed to face trial for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The brief facts appearing from the complaint, filed by Ziauddin Ansari, O.P. No. 2, is that accused Mahfuz Allam, who happens to be son of this petitioner, has informed the complainant that a bus is likely to be auctioned by TISCO Limited and he shown certain papers indicating that the bus is likely to be sold through auction by TISCO Limited. Since the complainant was in need of a bus, he was attracted with the assurance given by said Mahfuz Allam. The accused also shown letter No. 1/1998-99 ref. 118/98 of TISCO purported to be signed by Sri Sanjay Singh, Director Corporate Communication TISCO, Jamshedpur indicating the release of the bus has been given to the accused Mahfuz Alam, which made the complainant convinced. Whereafter a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- was realized from him against purchase of said bus. When the complainant did not get any bus as assured by accused Mahfuz Alam, he started demanding his money back. Thereafter said accused Mahfuz Alam issued cheques in favour of the complainant, but those cheques initially stood dishonoured and returned to the complainant with endorsement 'stop payment'. The complainant further chased the accused persons for refund of the money and thereafter a total sum of Rs. 60,000/- was returned by accused Mahfuz Alam to the complainant, but balance sum of Rs. 60,000/- remained unpaid and therefore, this complaint.

(2.) On the other hand learned counsel, appearing for the complainant, opposite party No. 2 submits that the learned Magistrate after going through the S.A. of the complainant had taken cognizance. The money was paid in presence of the petitioner and therefore he is also liable to be prosecuted for the offences alleged. I have gone through the entire complaint, impugned order and other documents placed before me. The petitioner has been directed to face trial under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, there was no entrustment to the petitioner nor he induced the complainant to part with money. It is also evident from the complaint petition that he never shown or handed over any forged document to the complainant. The averment made in the complaint is also silent that at the time of presentation of any forged document, the petitioner was even present or supported any of such documents. In that view of the matter, I find that the prosecution of the petitioner in the case on the averment made in the complaint is malicious and that should not be allowed to continue.