IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.294 of 2009 UPENDRA KUMAR, S/O LATE BHAGIRATH SINGH --- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. NAVNIT NISCHAL S/O SRI RAM JANAM SINGH --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 06.10.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, opposite party no.2/informant and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.01.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gaya, in Tr. No. 1761 of 2008, G.R.No. 1533 of 2006, whereby the application seeking discharge filed under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) has been considered and rejected. Learned Court below, on a perusal of the F.I.R., the police report, and other materials available on record, has come to the conclusion that there is/are sufficient evidence on record to proceed with the case by framing charge(s) punishable under Section 406 of the Penal Code. The contention made on behalf of the informant to frame charge under Sections 420 and 468 of the Penal Code was, however, deferred till parties adduce evidence. While assailing order learned counsel for the petitioner submits that going by the allegations contained in the F.I.R. it would appear that the informant had given a loan to one of his acquaintance. It is contended that considering the averments made in the F.I.R. no case under Section 406 of the Penal Code is made out. It is next 2 contended that informant has already filed a money suit in the Court below for realization of the outstanding amount worth Rs. 4,88000/- (Four lac eighty eight thousand). Learned counsel, however fairly admits that if the accusations made in the F.I.R. do constitute offence punishable under the Penal Code as well as give rise to a civil liability then in that event both the proceedings may go side by side. I have perused the F.I.R and the impugned order. It has been alleged therein in categorical terms that the accused approached him and induced him to pay as a loan amount on the plea that as soon as the petitioner/accused would get the arrear(s) of his salary he shall pay back the amount. Subsequently he also executed a kind of agreement (Ekrarnama) to pay back the amount to the informant within a particular time frame which he again defaulted. Considering the contents of the F.I.R. as also the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the order dated 20/01/2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya in Tr. No. 1761 of 2008 does not call for any interference. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)