PREM KUMAR TIWARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 9.6.2011 passed in Complaint Case No.106 of 2011 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner and others.

(3.) MR . Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the statement has been made on solemn affirmation that the money was given to this petitioner but the money receipt which is part of the complaint petition which has been annexed as Annexure 1 would go to show that the money had been given to Sanjay Kumar Gupta and further from Annexure 2 which is written undertaking given by Sanjay Kumar Gupta, it would appear that it was Sanjay Kumar Gupta who had given undertaking that the car would be registered in the name of the complainant and all the original documents would be transferred within two months and thus, it is evident that the petitioner was nowhere in the picture at all in the matter of transaction of the car, still he has been made accused in this case. Since the petitioner had not made any misrepresentation to the complainant, he cannot be said to have committed any offence whatsoever under Section 406, 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further submitted that no allegation is there in the complaint that the petitioner had induced the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to part with the money for purchasing the car and if that allegation is not there, no offence is made out either under Section 406 or under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.