IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.48269 OF 2008 BRAJ KISHORE SINGH, SON OF LATE NAVRANG SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE GHEURA, POLICE STATION RISHIUP, DISTRICT AURANGABAD VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ALOK KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIJAULI, POLICE STATION AURANGABAD MUFASSIL, DISTRICT AURANGABAD ********* 2 05/08/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed challenging the order dated23.10.2008 passed in Rishiup Police Station Case No. 34 of 2008 (G.R. No. 1185 of 2008) by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad has taken cognizance for the offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner who is the father of one Neeraj Kumar singh, who has supposedly taken Rs. 2,00,000/- as a friendly loan from the Opposite Party No. 2. Neeraj Kumar Singh has signed on a non- judicial stamp paper acknowledging that he was taking the loan. The allegation by the Opposite Party No. 2 is that when he went to recover the loan amount, the father of Neeraj Kumar Singh i.e. the petitioner threatened him. On the basis of the aforesaid fact, 2 cognizance has been taken under Section 420, 406 & 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. As far as this petitioner is concerned, it is admitted fact that he was not the person who had taken the loan from the Opposite Party No. 2. It was Neeraj Kumar Singh who had borrowed the money and as such if at all there is any allegation of cheating/misappropriation, it would lie against Neeraj Kumar Singh and not on this petitioner. This Court, therefore, comes to a find that no case is made out under Section 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code as far as this petitioner is concerned. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code would also not be attracted in such a case as there is nothing to show that both, the father and the son, had conspired at the very beginning of the transaction to divest the Opposite Party No. 2 of Rs. 2,00,000/- with the intention of cheating him and misappropriated the money, it is not so alleged in the First Information Report or in the subsequent statements of the witnesses. Considering the facts aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed as far as this petitioner is concerned. This application is allowed. Anand (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)