CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.29582 OF 2004 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.) *********** TUSHARKANT SARSIJ @ BABLU JEE, SON OF JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PINJAUR, P.S. KINJER, DISTT. JEHANABAD. --------- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SHRI MADAN MOHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE YAMUNA PRASAD, BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. MARC LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. MIG, 128, LOHIA NAGAR, KANKARBAGAH, PATNA – 20, HEAD QUARTER: AVANIBHI MANSION, 2, VIDHAN SABHA MARG, LUCKNOW. --------- OPPOSITE PARTIES. For the petitioner : None For the State : None For the Opposite Party : None. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, by which he has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 1498(C) of 2003 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The opposite party No. 2 was noticed by an order dated 5.11.2004 and the further proceeding were stayed and, thereafter, on 23.1.2006, after noting that the opposite party No. 2 was represented, the matter was admitted for hearing. Today the opposite party no. 2 has chosen not to appear before this Court. 3. The case of the Complainant is that the 2 accused No. 1 i.e. the Transporter induced the Complainant to engage his transport agency for transporting his medicine to various destination upon which he handed over various consignments of medicines which were also delivered to their respective destinations. However, a certain consignment of medicines worth about Rs. 1,52,432.22 entrusted to the Transporter for the petitioner’s firm was delivered to them but they were not making payments for the same. 4. In the entire Complaint, I find that there is absolutely no proof of delivery of the medicines to the petitioner’s firm and there is just a bald allegation that the transporter had delivered the consignment to the firm of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3. How he derived this knowledge is also not mentioned in the Complaint and, therefore, it appears that the entire allegations are based only on speculation which is totally groundless. 5. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order dated 16.9.2003 passed by Sri B. Ram, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 1498(c) of 2003, Trial No. 1565 of 2003 by which the cognizance was taken against the petitioner, is hereby quashed. Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 9th July, 2010 NAFR/S.ALI. ( Anjana Prakash, J.)