Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12768 of 2009 (08) dt.27-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12768 of 2009 ====================================================== Anand @ Prince @ Anand Kaushal .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhakar Jha Mr. Ratna Kumari Mr. Mritunjay Kumar-Advs. For the State : Mr. Gopesh Kumar- A.P.P. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ravi S. Pankaj Dr. Amrendra Kumar No.1-Advs. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 08 27-09-2012 This is an application for quashing the order dated 15.4.2006/ 17.4.2006 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No.27 of 2006 by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] . and Section 138 of the N. I. Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Accused no.1 a company running in name and style of M/s Anand Data Solutions through its Director (accused no.2) having its office at Mahavir Medicals, Opposite-A. N. College Main Gate, Boring Road, Patna and accused no.3 (petitioner) and accused no.4 partners of the said company having control and authority over the said company persuaded and induced fraudulently the complainant, who entered into a project agreement upon some terms. Complainant deposited a sum of Rs. Two Lacs and further deposited Rs. One Lac, but no agreed work was allotted to the complainant. Further, it is alleged that again the parties entered into another agreement for Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12768 of 2009 (08) dt.27-09-2012 which also a sum of Rs. One Lac was deposited, lesser work was allotted even no payment was made nor petitioner’s deposited money, even was returned. Several requests were made, anyhow he succeeded to receive a cheque of Rs. Two Lacs from accused no.2 deposited the same in bank, which was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Amit Raj was the Director and active partner, approached this Court by filing Cr. Misc. No.37448 of 2007 seeking quashing of the prosecution, which is allowed by a Bench of this Court by passing an order dated 26.02.2009. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner stands on better footing than of Amit Raj, so the cognizance and further prosecution is not justified to be sustained. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, this quashing application is allowed and impugned order dated 15.4.2006/ 17.6.2006 in Complaint Case No.27 of 2006 along with the whole prosecution against the petitioner is hereby quashed. Vikash/ N.A.F.R. (Mandhata Singh, 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.