IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.769 of 2010 OM PRAKASH GUPTA SON OF LATE BAIDNATH PRASAD AT/ P.O. + P.S. SANGRAMPUR, EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BIHAR SHARIF. 3. THE OFICER-IN-CHARGE, BIHAR SHARIF P.S. BIHAR SHARIF. 4. SATYENDRA MOHAN KUMAR SINHA SON OF SRI SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD, RESIDENT OF BICHALI KHANDAKPUR, P.O. + P.S. BIHAR SHARIF, DISTRICT NALANDA ----------- 02. 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The prayer of the petitioner is that first information report bearing Bihar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010 registered for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal deserves to be quashed. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the respondent no. 4 was sent to the police for investigation. The police considering the allegations made in the complaint registered Bihar P.S. Case No. 66 of 2010 for the offence under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that police ought not to have registered the case for the alleged offence under section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal code only since the matter relates to dishonour of cheque attracting the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for which the complaint is only maintainable in law. Learned counsel for the State submits that on perusal of the allegation made in the complaint, it appears that there were allegations which attract the alleged offence under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code as well and as such, police registered the aforesaid first information report for the above offence which is correct in law. Considering the rival submission of the parties and on perusal of the allegations made in the complaint which was sent to the police for registering the case, I do not find any error in law. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Jagdish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)