Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2285 of 2010 (5) dt.26-06-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.2285 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Shiv Gupta @ Shiv Kumar Gupta @ Sheo Kumar Gupta S/O Late Ram Swarup Gupta R/O Old Aanaj Mandi Gohana,District Sonepat,Haryana Poop & Incharge Of M/S Helax Health Care,Gohana Mandi,Gohana,District Sonepat (Haryana) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Anil Kumar Singh S/O Sri Dashrath Singh R/O New Jakanpur Behind Lakothi,Near Laxmi Market, P.S.-Jakanpur, District Patna, Pro. of M/S Harishti Pharma, B-41, Biscoman Colony P.O.- Gulzarbagh, Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh (Advocate) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 5 26-06-2012 Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention towards the name of petitioner which has wrongly been mentioned in daily cause list as Shiv Gope @ Shiv Kumar Gupta in place of Shiv Gupta @ Shiv Kumar Gupta @ Sheo Kumar Gupta. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. None appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 on repeated call though Opposite Party No. 2 has already filed power in favour of his counsel whose name is appearing in daily cause list. In my view, this petition can be disposed of on admission stage itself. The petitioner, while invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2285 of 2010 (5) dt.26-06-2012 prayed for quashing the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3026 C of 2006 by which and whereunder he having found prima facie case under [STATUTE] and 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner and other accused, ordered to issue process against them to procure their attendance for facing the trial. The brief fact, which lies to file this quashing petition, is that Opposite Party No. 2, namely, Anil Kumar Singh filed above stated Complaint Case No. 3026 C of 2006 against the petitioner and two others alleging therein that he was carrying business of medicine at Patna for more than two years having proper license and accused no. 2, namely, Arun Kumar Singh as well as one Satyendra Kumar Singh approached him and persuaded him to become consignee agent of Helax Health Care and on account of the aforesaid persuasion, the Opposite Party No. 2 agreed to pay an amount of rupees three lacs and fifty thousand in three installments as security money for the aforesaid business and accordingly, the aforesaid accused Arun Kumar Singh as well as Rakesh Kumar Sinha assured him for an interest at the rate of 10% on the security deposit and a commission at the rate of 5% of sale to him but the Opposite Party No. 2 neither got any interest Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2285 of 2010 (5) dt.26-06-2012 nor any commission on sale and the accused persons including the petitioner did not return his security money as well as profit and interest on his security money. Furthermore it is alleged that a talk of compromise took place between the parties and accused Arun Kumar Singh executed a deed of agreement and the accused persons agreed to return his security money as well as rupees seventy five thousand against guaranteed commission to the Opposite Party No. 2 and in pursuance of the above stated agreement, two post dated cheques of rupees two lacs and two lacs twenty five thousand were signed by the authorized signatory, namely, accused, Arun Kumar Singh and the said cheques were handed over to the Opposite Party No. 2 but when the aforesaid cheques were presented before concerned bank, the same became bounced and after that Opposite Party No. 2 sent a legal notice to the petitioner and other accused through his counsel and filed the aforesaid complaint case. The aforesaid complaint case was enquired and having conducted an enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2007 in the manner as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is admitted case of the Opposite Party No. 2 that he along with Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2285 of 2010 (5) dt.26-06-2012 accused Arun Kumar Singh and others sat on table for negotiation and in the aforesaid negotiation, accused Arun Kumar Singh executed an agreement on 11.03.2006 accepting this fact that he had taken rupees three lacs and fifty thousand from the Opposite Party No. 2 as security money and further he accepted this fact that there was dues of rupees seventy five thousand against him and assured the Opposite Party No. 2 to return rupees four lacs twenty five thousand to him and in persuasion of the aforesaid negotiation, he issued post dated cheques to the Opposite Party No. 2. It is further submitted by him that according to contents of complaint petition as well as agreement dated 11.03.2006, it is obvious that neither petitioner entered into agreement nor took any amount from Opposite Party No. 2 nor issued any cheque in his favour and, therefore, no case is made out against the petitioner. It is further contended by him that no doubt, petitioner is proprietor of Helax Health Care Company but in the face of admission of co- accused, Arun Kumar Singh, there is nothing against the petitioner to constitute any offence and moreover, having more or less similar allegation, the another Bench of this Court quashed the prosecution of co-accused, Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Sinha vide order dated 19.11.2008 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34574 of 2007. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2285 of 2010 (5) dt.26-06-2012 On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor suppo

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.