IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.37897 of 2007 NIRANJAN KUMAR SINHA @ SACHCHU, S/O LATE KRISHNANDAN PRASAD Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. MANWEL KISKU, S/O MANGAL KISKU **** /4/ 19.02.2010 Heard both the sides. 2. The petitioner has filed an application for quashing the entire proceeding, including the order, dated 16.01.2007, by which the Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner in Chandana P.S. Case No. 77 of 2003 which had been initially instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 392 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown miscreants. 3. The case of opposite party no. 2 is that he had wanted to take loan for a tractor through an agent, i.e., the present petitioner for which he paid him a sum of Rs.24,000/- out of a total sum of Rs.25,000/-. On the date of occurrence while he was going home some persons caught him and took him to forest area and after a general enquiry set him free. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 was examined under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code stating therein that there was an agreement between the present petitioner and opposite party no. 2 for sale of a tractor for a total amount of Rs.50,000/- out of which he paid the present petitioner Rs.24,000/- and was supposed to pay the entire amount by 27.11.2003. However, he was unable to arrange for the said amount and expressed his inability before the petitioner who stated that he would have to 2 necessarily take the tractor and there was no question of going back on the agreement. So his friend, Balo Khaira, advised him to enact a scene of fake kidnapping to create an alibi for not paying the entire amount and wriggling out of the transaction for purchase of the tractor. In pursuance to the same he had enacted the said drama and filed the present case. After investigation strangely charge sheet was submitted under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 4. The submission of the petitioner is that from the facts of the case no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and the complainant had no grievance against the petitioner for having paid Rs.24,000/- out of Rs.50,000/- and, therefore, the offence under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was totally superfluous. Moreover, even if the entire complaint is accepted as it is, it is not understandable how the petitioner could be prosecuted under Sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Opposite party no. 2 disputes the contention. 6. In my view from the facts of the case the order taking cognizance is totally mechanical without any application of mind since no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioner and the entire prosecution is nothing, but, a sheer abuse of the process of the Court and is fit to be quashed. 7. Under the circumstances, I allow this application and quash the entire proceeding, including the order, dated 16.01.2007, passed in Chandana P.S. Case No. 77 of 2003. S.A. (Anjana Prakash, J.)