Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5904 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sudhir Narain Karna, Son of Radha Krishna Das, resident of village- Simri, P.O.- Simri, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani. Presently posed as Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Saidpur Branch, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Nageshwar Yadav S/o Sheoji Yadav, resident of village Bhagwan Das, J.P.Chawk, P.S.- Kotwali, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Opposite Parties. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5. 27-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Ram Bali Jha, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of complainant/opp. party no. 2. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, initially had prayed for quashing of an order dated 2-8-2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1689 of 2008/T.R.No. 3106 of 2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, whereby, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under [STATUTE] and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Subsequently, in this case, by filing supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has brought on record an order passed by the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 308 of 2009, whereby, Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5904 of 2010 (5) dt.27-08-2012 2 / 3 2 revision, which was preferred against order of cognizance, stood dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order, submits that petitioner has played no role in the present case. The petitioner was Assistant Bank Manager of Syndicate Bank, Darbhanga at the relevant time. It was alleged that whatever allegation was leveled, was leveled against the brother of the petitioner, not against the petitioner. On this ground, he has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/opp. party no. 2 submits that petitioner, conspiring with his own brother, has cheated the complainant. Cheque was issued under the signature of the brother of the petitioner, which was dishonoured on its presentation. It was further submitted that during inquiry also, sufficient material was brought on record and as such, learned Magistrate has rightly passed order of cognizance. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused materials available on record, particularly, complaint petition. The Court is satisfied that learned Magistrate, while passing the order of cognizance, has committed no error. The petition stands dismissed. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5904 of 2010 (5) dt.27-08-2012 3 / 3 3 Anay (Rakesh Kumar, 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.