RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/1 Case No. 832 of 2000 including the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act). A complaint case had been instituted by the opposite party No. 2 herein in which it was stated that the petitioner who was known to the complainant, introduced him with the accused No. 2 and the petitioner had stated that he would supply a mobile phone and the money for which would be arranged by M/s. Trade Well Finance Company Limited and the complainant had to make payment in installments. It has been further alleged that the complainant handed over blank cheques to the accused No. 2 and the petitioner had encashed the said blank cheques, handed over by the complainant and misappropriated the money and when the complainant approached the petitioner, he handed over only a cheque of Rs. 8,500/ - to the complainant which was dishonoured.

(2.) AFTER initiation of the complaint case, an enquiry was conducted u/s 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as also his witnesses and pursuant thereto vide order dated 19.12.2000, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur was pleased to take cognizance for the offence punishable u/s 420/406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (N.I. Act).

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegations made in the complaint petition are false and concocted inasmuch as it was the complainant/ opposite party No. 2 who had approached the company for getting sanctioned a loan of Rs. 11,000/ - and after the loan was sanctioned cheques amounting to Rs. 11,000/ - was handed over to the complainant/ opposite party No. 2. He has further submitted that the opposite party No. 2 had issued cheques dated 24.3.1998 and 21.8.1999 for an amount of Rs. 6,490/ - and Rs. 6,000/ - in favour of the finance company but the same were dishonoured and when the opposite party No. 2 was confronted, he had made assurance to make payment. Ultimately when the entire amount with interest accumulated to the tune of Rs. 25,127/ -, the opposite party No. 2 issued a cheque bearing No. 1080660 on 17.10.2000 in full liquidation of the amount payable to the finance company, which however was dishonoured again. He further submits that since inspite of a legal notice, the opposite party No. 2 failed to make payment, a complaint case was instituted against him being Complaint Case No. 1099 of 2000 on 1.12.2000. He also submits that in the complaint petition, filed by the opposite party No. 2, there is no mention about the date on which notice was given to the petitioner before instituting the complaint case. He, therefore, submits that the same is in violation of the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act and as such the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.