Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.39737 of 2008 ===================================================== Raghunath Dey, son of Late H.K. Dey, Managing Director of M/s. The Howrah Motor Company Limited, 16, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Om Prakash Sharma, son of Sri Haranandan Prasad Sharma, resident of Flat No.407, Hem Plaza, Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.42706 of 2008 ===================================================== Raghunath Dey, son of Late H.K. Dey, Managing Director of M/s. The Howrah Motor Company Limited, 16, Rajendra Nath Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Om Prakash Sharma, son of Sri Haranandan Prasad Sharma, resident of Flat No.407, Hem Plaza, Frazer Road, P.S. Kotwali, District-Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ===================================================== Appearance : In both the applications: For the Petitioner : M/s. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, Dhirendra Kumar and Ujjwal Kumar Mishra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA CAV ORDER ------------------- 9 20-04-2012 Criminal Misc. No.39737 of 2008 has been filed to quash the order dated 23.1.2006 passed in Complaint Case No.1119 of 2005/T.R. No.2468 of 2006, whereby the court of Sri Manoj Kumar No.II, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, summoned the accused- petitioner, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39737 of 2008 (9) dt.20-04-2012 2 / 7 2 Procedure, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Criminal Misc. No.42706 of 2008 has been filed to quash the order dated 30.6.2008 passed in Complaint Case No.1119 of 2005, whereby the court of Sri Narad Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, allowed the application of the accused-petitioner filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a direction to the petitioner that he shall be physically present before the court at the time of framing of charge, recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at the time of delivery of the judgment positively. Both the aforesaid applications have been preferred by the same petitioner and are against the two orders passed in the same case, i.e., Complaint Case No.1119 of 2005. Therefore, both the aforesaid applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In brief the facts, leading to both the aforesaid applications, is that the opposite party no.2, Om Prakash Sharma, filed the Complaint Case No.1119 of 2005 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, against the accused-petitioner, Raghunath Dey, alleging therein that he approached the petitioner to negotiate to purchase a portion of Howrah Motor Compound situated at Patna- Gaya Road. After several visits, the accused-petitioner gave words to Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39737 of 2008 (9) dt.20-04-2012 3 / 7 3 sell the portion of Howrah Motor Compound and, accordingly, the opposite party no.2 paid cash of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner as advance. The opposite party no.2 made request to the petitioner to execute the sale deed after getting the balance consideration money but he always avoided the same on one pretext or the other. Later on, the opposite party no.2 came to know that the said land had already been mortgaged with the Union Bank of India, Kolkata and the same has been sold in auction and the petitioner did not have any right, title and interest to negotiate/transfer the land of Howrah Motor Compound. On repeated demand by the opposite party no.2, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing no.019418 dated 31.12.2004, drawn on Central Bank of India, Budha Marge, Patna, in the name of opposite party no.2 but on presentation of the cheque for its credit on 21.3.2005, the same was returned on the same day by the Bank with an endorsement “Fund insufficient”. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2, sent a legal notice to the accused-petitioner on 24.3.2005 through registered post demanding the amount of the cheque. While the petitioner replied the legal notice of the opposite party no.2 but denied the issuance of cheque and negotiation regarding sale of part of Howrah Motor Compound. As such, the petitioner fraudulently and with dishonest intention deceived the opposite party no.2 by taking Rs.3,00,000/- by giving false assurance to sale part of Howrah Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39737 of 2008 (9) dt.20-04-2012 4 / 7 4 Motor Compound, concealing the fact that the compound had already been mortgaged with the Union Bank of India, Kolkata and also issued a cheque without corresponding deposit in the Bank. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, the court of Sri Manoj Kumar No.II, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna, on enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the petitioner, finding prima facie case under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 23.1.2006, which is impugned in Criminal Misc. No.39737 of 2008. Later on, the petitioner filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with his personal attendance, which was rejected vide order dated 22.5.2006 by the court of Sri Manoj Kumar No.II, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patna. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.521 of 2006 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.3.2007 passed by a Bench of this Court with an observation that in view of submission o

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.