Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25341 of 2010 (3) dt.16-02-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.25341 of 2010 ====================================================== Sureshwar Narain Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus State Of Bihar & Anr .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 3 16-02-2012 The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 1.2.2007 taking cognizance against the petitioner under [STATUTE] and 138 of N.I.Act. 2. According to the complaint filed by O.P. No. 2, an Optra car was purchased by the petitioner.A consideration of Rs.8,23,393/- was paid by cheque against delivery of the vehicle, but the cheque tendered by the petitioner in payment thereof was returned by the bank unpaid with the remark “insufficient fund” thus leading to the present dispute. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the car was never delivered to the petitioner. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner points out from the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patna in Case no. 1771C/2006 rejecting his discharge petition, which has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit today, that the question of delivery of the vehicle in favour of petitioner was subject to verification. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand categorically states that the possession of the vehicle was duly Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25341 of 2010 (3) dt.16-02-2012 handed over to the petitioner and relevant documents including the Form 21 had been furnished before the learned Court below during discharge stage. 5. In view of the fundamental question of fact whether or not the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner being in dispute, the same can be resolved only by means of leading evidence in this behalf by the parties to this dispute. This Court, is therefore, not inclined to interfere and the petition therefore, stands dismissed. Chandran (Vikash Jain, 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.