IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.8840 of 1999 Vijay Prasad son of late Bhikham Sah resident of mohalla Ghausganj, P.S. Ara (Town) District Bhojpur ....Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Jitender Prasad Gupta son of Ramchander Prasad Gupta, resident of village Prasadi English, P.S. Arwal, District Jehanabad .......Opp. Parties ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. N. A. Shamsi, Advocate Mr. Rashid Rais, Advocate For the State: Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Sr. Advocate ---------- 6 6-5-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is father-in-law of the complainant and has been made one of the accused in complaint case no. 51/98 (Trial No. 477/98). The prayer in this application is to quash the order of cognizance dated 26-3-98 passed in the aforesaid case by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jehanabad for offences under sections 120B, 420, 426 and 406 of the IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the allegations made in the complaint petition, which is annexure-1, to show that the only grievance of the complainant is that after his marriage with accused Vandana Devi in the year 1991 he was living properly with his wife but on 12-11-94 his father-in-law asked for the scooter, which had been given to the complainant by him, and in good faith the complainant gave the scooter as well as its paper and a few days thereafter his wife went away with her ornaments and valuables along with her brother. The complainant has alleged that when the scooter and other valuables were not returned even after legal notice then he filed Matrimonial Suit No. 2 2/98 in the court of District Judge and thereafter the complaint case was filed on 10-2-98, after more than three years of the alleged occurrence in November, 1994. On carefully examining the substance of the allegations in the complaint petition, this court is in agreement with the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner that no criminal offence is made out either of breach of trust or cheating. It is admitted that scooter was given by the petitioner to the complainant as gift. It was a movable property which the complainant voluntarily again give back to the petitioner on demand. The jewellery and valuables belonged to the accused Vandana Devi, daughter of this petitioner, either exclusively or may be jointly with the complainant but that will also not make out a case of entrustment and cheating. Considering all the facts and circumstances and submissions advanced by both the parties, the prayer made in this application is allowed and the impugned order of cognizance is quashed. This application stands allowed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)