Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.3218 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. The Peerless General Finance & Investment Company Ltd. At Sukriti Apartment S.P.Verma Road Patna-800 001 Through Its Authorized Representative Senior Debashis Bhawan Manager Legal , Peerless Bhawan,3 Esplanded East,Kolkata,West Bengal-700 069. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Bishundeo Ram Late Jagnath Ram Sarha Ps-Motipur Distt.Muzaffarpur,Presently Residing At Grand Hotel,Frazer Rd.Ps- Kotwali,Distt.Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. S. Azeem, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 4 27-06-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.5.2004 passed in Complaint Case No.660-C of 2004 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioners under [STATUTE] . No one appears on behalf of opposite party no.2 even after notice to him. This Court has no other alternative but to pass order on merit in absence of opposite party no.2. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3218 of 2011 (4) dt.27-06-2012 2 / 3 2 complainant has deposited the money on the allurement of the accused persons but money was not returned as per the scheme and made an allegation that the accused persons have misappropriated the money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whatsoever allegation that has been made it has been alleged against accused no.1. He has submitted that during pendency of the case the money which he was entitled have been paid to him i.e. Rs.2,472/- as per the statement made under the scheme. He has drawn my attention that the parties have entered into a compromise and accordingly an application (Annexure-4) was filed before the court below. He further submits that one Shiv Nath Banerjee who was the Branch manager has moved before this Court vide cr. Misc. No. 13071 of 2008 and this Court vide order dated 14.5.2010 has quashed the order of summoning to him. He further submits that whatever dues amount was lying the with the Company , the same has already paid to him and nothing has been left out to pay by the company. As no one has appeared from the side of opposite party no.2 and from the record it appears that money that has been deposited corresponding to benefit has already been paid to the complainant. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3218 of 2011 (4) dt.27-06-2012 3 / 3 3 In this view of the matter the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly the order of cognizance dated 27.5.2004 passed in Complaint Case no.660-C of 2004 is quashed and this application is allowed. Vinay/- (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.