S.CHAKRABORTY @ SUVENDU CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, an Assistant Manager of M/s. Sunlit Enterprises, has challenged the order dated 28.7.2008, taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 420 and 120 -B/34, IPC against him on the basis of the complaint petition, filed by the O.P. No. 2 Divya Singh, mainly on three grounds :

(2.) IN support of his submissions, Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Sharon Michael and others V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 375".

(3.) IT is also submitted that the petitioner misrepresented that his Company was the authorized dealer of Kirlosker Company but in fact, their dealership was already cancelled and, therefore, it is apparent that it was this petitioner, who misrepresented and induced the complainant to pay Rs.