LAWS(JHAR)-2016-11-23

MAYUR ADESHRA S/O LATE R.C. ADESHRA, R/O GEMS HOUSE, APNA BAZAR, BISTUPUR MARKET, P.O & P.S. BISTUPUR, JAMSHEDPUR, DIST. EAST SINGHBHUM Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On November 24, 2016
Mayur Adeshra S/O Late R.C. Adeshra, R/O Gems House, Apna Bazar, Bistupur Market, P.O And P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum Appellant
V/S
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.11.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jamshedpur in connection with Complaint case No. 2384 of 2014 whereby bail bond of the petitioner has been rejected and NBW has been issued against the petitioner in a composite order.

(3.) It appears from the complaint that the complainant is a proprietary firm represented by its proprietor Anil Kumar Sahu, who was known to the petitioner since before. It is alleged that complainant had placed an order to purchase gem stones from the accused for which the accused had also received a total sum of Rs. 20,000.00 as an advance. Thereafter petitioner had issued two receipts/advance vouchers dated 16.08.2013 bearing nos. 0036 and 0037 against the order nos. 336/13-14 and 337/13-14 respectively, acknowledging the receipt of sum of Rs. 10,00,000.00 only, from the complainant firm and the petitioner had also issued two more receipts/advance vouchers for Rs. 5,00,000.00 only, each dated 16.08.2013 in the name of the proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar Sahu acknowledging receipt of the same by the petitioner. When the petitioner could not supply gem stones even after lapse of 9 months, the complainant asked him to refund the advance amount. The petitioner issued one cheque in favour of the complainant and two cheques in favour of proprietor of the firm and further promised to repay the balance amount of Rs.2 Lacs. in cash. The cheques so issued got dishonoured due to insufficient fund. Being aggrieved the complainant served legal notice to the petitioner through its lawyer. When in spite of service of legal notice the petitioner did not return the amount, the complainant filed instant complaint.