IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.53989 of 2007 MUNIJEE, Son of Kamla Prasad, resident of Village- Nuaon, Police Station-Krishna Brahm, District- Buxar..............................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Parmeshwar Singh, Son of Late Ram Govind Singh, resident of Village- Nuaon, Police Station-Krishna Brahm, District-Buxar. ..............Opposite Parties. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Dhananjay Kumar & Pawan Kumar Advocates. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma No. 1, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. ----------- 03. 19.03.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 22.05.2007 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Buxar, in Complaint Case No. 939C of 2006/ Trial No. 1744 of 2007 whereby the cognizance has been taken under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out because the payment alleged to have been made by the complainant through the draft and the draft application form is annexed as Annexures-3 series clearly depict that the draft has been 2 made in favour of Govind Mills Ltd. hence, entrustment is to Govind Mills Ltd. and not to this petitioner. Moreover, the credit memo bearing Invoice No. 0488 dated 03.06.2004 which is at Annexure-4 of the petition clearly depicts that the complainant took the goods on credit for Rs. 105300/- from Govind Mills Ltd. and the draft was in lieu of the payment of the same. Moreover, Govind Mills Ltd. has not been made an accused though complaint was filed against six persons but the learned Magistrate found only a case prima facie against this petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 is that at the behest of the petitioner the complainant gave the money to Govind Mills Ltd. hence, he is liable for return of the money. After going through the complaint petition, it appears that the complainant has admitted the entrustment of the money to Govind Mills Ltd. Prima facie there is nothing on record that draft was given to Govind Mills at the 3 behest of petitioner. In view of the fact that the complainant himself has admitted in the complaint petition that the draft was made in favour of Govind Mills Ltd. and the documents suggest as such. Admittedly there was no entrustment to petitioner hence, I do not find that any case under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner. Hence, the present quashing application is allowed and the order of cognizance dated 22.05.2007 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 939C of 2006/ Trial No. 1744 of 2007 pending in the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Buxar is hereby quashed. This application is, accordingly, allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)