REYAZUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the complain-ant-O.P. No. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, in C-1 Case No. 583 of 2006, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for discharge under Section 245 of the Cr. P.C. has been dismissed by the Court below finding that there are sufficient materials on record for framing the charge under Section 420 of the IPC and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in short compass. The complainant O.P. No. 2 filed the complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, which was registered as C-1 Case No. 583 of 2006, with the allegation that the accused had taken a friendly loan of Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant on 15.2.2004 and had executed a promissory note in the proof of the same. The amount was not being returned by the accused and ultimately, after about two years, the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 70,000/- in favour of the complainant being the cheque No. 685714 dated 11.2.2006 drawn on Singhbhum Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Pardih Branch, Jamshedpur. The said cheque was presented in the Bank by the Complainant and the same was returned to the complainant unpaid with the remark on the cheque memo "Account closed". The cheque return memo was handed over to the complainant on 25.2.2006. Thereafter, the complainant gave a legal notice to the accused through the registered post with A/D on 3.3.2006 and the said notice was returned undelivered with the endorsement of the postal peon, "No such person live on this address hence returned to sender". Again a notice was sent to the petitioner on his permanent address, which was also returned. It is the case of the complainant that the accused was also informed personally, but he refused to return the money and the complainant had learnt that the accused had already closed the bank account on 29.8.2005 itself and knowing the same full well, the cheque was issued to the complainant on 11.2.2006 and accordingly, the complainant claimed that the offence is made out against the petitioner under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC as well as under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complaint petition was filed on 5.5.2006.

(3.) It appears that after finding the prima facie case against the petitioner upon enquiry, four witnesses were examined before charge by the complainant. The petitioner, thereafter filed his application under Section 245 of the Cr. P.C. for discharge, which was dismissed by the Court below finding that there are sufficient materials on record for framing the charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 of the IPC and under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.