Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8805 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Verma @ Manoj Singh S/O Surendra Singh R/O Dina Chakla, P.S- Pasaraha, Distt- Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s. Surendra Kumar Singh S.Chandra, Advs. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 09-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In this case, petitioner is challenging the order dated 18th November 2008 by which the court below has taken cognizance [STATUTE] the petitioner that he had taken Rs.65,000/- in presence of witnesses for providing employment in the Education Department but he neither made any favour to him with regard to employment nor did he return the money which led to filing of the present case. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the moment he received legal notice from the O.P.No.2 with regard to the aforesaid statement he instantly filed another case i.e. Complaint Case No.795 of 2008 where the petitioner has challenged the statement made in the complaint cum-FIR. It has been submitted that in the case filed by the petitioner, cognizance has already been Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8805 of 2011 (3) dt.09-07-2012 2 / 2 2 taken. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the higher Police Official has directed for reinvestigation in the matter and after investigation, it was found by the Police that the allegations made in the complaint cum-FIR are completely false and fabricated and has submitted that the present proceeding is abuse of process of court. Counsel for the O.P.No.2 has contradicted the submission of the petitioner and has submitted that the allegation made in the complaint petition is false as the petitioner has manoeuvered the Police and has got the report in his favour. Having considered the rival contention of the parties, it is not possible for this Court to examine the factual aspect of the matter. This petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file petition at the time of framing of charge bringing on record all the materials and it is expected that as the issue involved in both the cases are completely intermingled, it will be for the ends of justice that the court below should hear both the matters one by one and would pass the order in accordance with law. Jay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

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.