IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.37332 of 2007 BASANT KUMAR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5 04/02/2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Opp. Party No. 2. The petitioner is complainant of Complaint case no. 1325/2006. He states that on inducement of Opp. Party No. 2 and 3 he purchased TATA Sumo vehicle being Registration no. JH 02D/1755 for a sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-. Accused persons even got the name of petitioner transferred as owner in the DTO office. Subsequently, the vehicle was taken away from him by the financier as loan remained outstanding against it. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned court below as they have taken cognizance only under sections 323 & 504 I.P.C. Learned counsel submits that in view of the materials on record a case under sections 406,420,467,468 & 471 I.P.C. is also made out against the Opp. parties. Thus he submits that the Magistrate ought to have taken cognizance under the aforesaid sections as well. He submits that learned revisional court also committed error in confirming order of the trial court. Counsel for Opp. Party No. 2 submits that in fact he had purchased the vehicle in question from one Manoj Prasad on 27.12.2004 and he was not aware whether the aforesaid vehicle was purchased on higher purchase basis by he financier. As such, in the - 2 - facts of the case, no offence is made out against them. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this court set aside order dated 27.7.2007, passed in Cr. revision no. 148/07 as well as order dated 26.4.2007, passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class in Complaint case no. 1325 of 2006. The learned Magistrate will consider again whether any offence under sections 420 I.P.C. is also made out or not, besides sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. Learned Magistrate will pass order after hearing counsel of both sides. The instant petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh,J).