IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.2027 of 2001 PAWAN KUMAR SINGHLA, Son of Laxmi Narayan, One of the Directors, M/s Thakur Petro Chemicals Ltd., Resident of 202, Shivlok House II, New Delhi 110015. . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Yashwant Kumar Singh, S/o Rajeshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of Shivpuri, Road No. 4, P.S. Shastri Nagar, District Patna, at present Proprietor of M/s National Motor Financial Service, 108, Jagat Trade Centre, Frazer Road, Patna. . . . . . . Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, For the State : Mr. Nirbhay Kr. Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 18/ 11.01.2010 Heard. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 10.09.1999 whereby Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna took cognizance of the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint case no. 1612 C of 1998, Tr. No. 1604 of 1999. The complainant alleged that he furnished two blank cheques bearing nos. 329219 and 329220 and a draft of Rs. 25,000/- for supply of materials pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The complainant alleged in paragraph-5 that some goods were supplied, but as the quality and packaging were inferior, the same was returned to Shri S.K. Jha authorized representative of petitioner on 05.02.1998. Thereafter, despite several reminders, the cheques have not been returned to him. The complainant alleged that the accused would take undue advantage and would cause unnecessary harassment to him. He further alleged that by not returning cheques, the accused has committed breach of trust of the complainant. In paragraph-14, it has been alleged that accused has forged and manipulated the cheques - 2 - for illegal gain as was disclosed by Mr. Jha, representatives of the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute would be a civil one and no criminal prosecution would be maintainable. He submits that in fact, the materials were supplied and the cheques, in all probability, were encashed. Counsel for the State submits that there is allegation in the Complaint that the accused persons have forged and manipulated the cheques. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the plea that though cheques have been encashed but goods had not been supplied may be defence of the petitioner. The Magistrate has found sufficient material for proceeding against petitioner in view of materials on record. Thus, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order summoning the accused / petitioner to face trial. However, he may raise all these points at the time of framing of charge. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)