IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22721 of 2007 Dilip Kumar Singhania @ Deepu Singhania, Son of Kedar Singhania, Resident of Bakhri East Police Station Bakhri, District Begusarai. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Anandi Mukhiya, S/o late Khakhoran Mukhiya, R/o Village Garhpura, P.S. Garhpura Block Bakhri, District Begusarai. -------- Opposite Parties ----------- 8 27.7.2009 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y.N. Rai, learned senior counsel for the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order taking cognizance under Section 504 I.P.C. would submit that a bonafide transaction of sale of vehicle by the petitioner in favour of the complainant could not have been subject matter of the complainant case as the same best at could be a dispute of a civil nature. In the opinion of this Court there would be some difficulty for the petitioner in showing as to how he became the owner of the vehicle so as to have a right to transfer the same in the name of the opposite party no.2. Counsel for the petitioner would contend that a sale letter dated 5.9.2003 executed by one 2 Karnail Singh is the only document showing sale of the vehicle in question to the petitioner. The vehicle in question, therefore, shown therein to have been sold on 5.9.2003, a corresponding entry to that effect in the owner book that was possessed by Karnail Singh, should have been there but now when the counsel for the petitioner would himself produce the owner book, surprisingly the same has neither the name of Karnail Singh nor the name of the petitioner. Such owner book with the date of entry at the first page of 11.9.1998 and still showing the opposite party no.2 to be the registered owner with an endorsement of transfer to Anandi Mukhiya, opposite party no.2 which by itself an unexplained mystery and at least would again raise a grave doubt as with regard to the petitioner being owner of the vehicle. The only thing which would be evident from the owner book produced by the petitioner by way of Annexure-2 to this application is that the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai had registered in the name of Anandi Mukhiya, opposite party no.2 on 3 13.2.2007. Whether such registration again could have given a valid title to the petitioner to sale it in the year, 2006 would itself be a doubtful proposition. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that such entry was made on the basis of document submitted by Karnail Singh directly to the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai on 13.2.2007 will have to be again rejected because the vehicle in question is said to be transferred by the petitioner to the opposite party no.2 on 23.3.2005 by accepting payment of Rs. 2,05,001/- and thereafter also receiving the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- on 24.5.2005. It however does not stand to reason that the vehicle had met an accident, as is admitted case of the parties, on 23.6.2005, it would be very difficult to understand the logic of transfer of the vehicle in the name of opposite party no.2 on 13.2.2007 at the instance of the petitioner. Obviously, the allegation of cheating against the petitioner of swindling away the money of the complainant without transfer of vehicle may need a lot of 4 explanation by way of looking into defence reason of the petitioner. That however cannot be done at the stage while taking cognizance of the petitioner the offence alleged in the complaint petition as any defence of the petitioner can be looked into only at the time of trial and not for exercise of inherent power by this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Infact on perusal of complaint petition this Court is satisfied that there has been direct and clear allegation constituting prima-facie case for offence of cheating and other connected offences. That being so, this Court would find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly, this application for quashing impugned order taking cognizance and the resultant entire criminal proceedings is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)