IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.54063 of 2006 1. SHASHI SHEKHAR son of Nawal Sharma. 2. Rakesh Kr. Ranjan son of Nawal Sharma. 3. Nawal Sharma son of Parmeshwar Sharma All residents of village – Kaira , Police Station – Khizarsarai, District – Gaya. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Sant Prasad Sharma son of late Badri Narayan Singh, resident of village –Shuhar Rampaur, P.S. Naubatpur, District – Patna. ----------- 13. 13/4/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned APP for the State. Petitioners are seeking quashing of Complaint Case No.1906 C of 2005 as cognizance has been taken against them on 12.8.2005 by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna. The substantive offences are under sections 420, 120B and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the complaint filed by opposite party No.2, one Bharti Consultancy Services being run by petitioners made advertisement for admission in MBBS course and other courses in D Y Patil Medical College. The son of opposite party No.2 got interested and attracted by the said advertisement and approached the accused persons, they in turn asked him to persuade his father Nawal Sharma, a teacher working in a school, to help them in working out the nitty-gritty of such admission. After the meeting opposite party No.2 was made to part with 3.5 lacs which was paid to the accused persons by various cheques on three different dates, the details of which are given in - 2 - para 11 of the present application. The cheques in question were issued in favour of the accused persons way back in the year 2003 but despite passage of more than 2 years neither the money was returned nor the promised admission to the son of opposite party no.2 materialised. This is the background under which the complainant was forced to move the court below by way of the complaint. After solemn examination of the complainant and the witnesses in this regard cognizance came to be taken which in turn forced these petitioners to rush to the High Court seeking quashing. Time and again the Court had been made to believe that the accused persons would like to resolve the issue, pay back the money and settle the matter. This was one of the background under which a kind of stay order came to be granted way back on 16.1.2007 but the magnanimity and indulgence of the Court only emboldened the accused persons to seek adjournment in the case on one ground or the other instead of facing the situation headed-on. From bare perusal of the allegation and evidence which has been furnished with the complaint the basic ingredients of the substantive offences seem to have been made out. If that is the situation, there is no reason why the Court should interfere with the process of the criminal trial and come to the rescue of these petitioners who have cheated the innocent citizen of his hard-earned money who got allured for the future of his son. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that no - 3 - offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out or even otherwise looking at the time when the cheques were issued and complaint has been filed. The submission made at the bar in this regard will be a matter which can be looked into at the time of framing of charge and since other substantive offences are made out, based on the allegations made in the complaint, there is no occasion for interference with the order taking cognizance. The quashing application is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)