IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25368 of 2007 SHEO RATAN SINGH, SON OF LATE MUNDRIKA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SUMESHWAR NATH COLONY, P.S. NAGAR HAJIR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. AJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF DHARAM NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHLL. SITA CHOWK, P.S. NAGAR HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI ………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Subodh Prasad, Madhu Prasad and Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocates. For the State : Dr.Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : M/s. Surendra Kumar Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh And Anridh Kumar Singh, Advocates. ------------- O R D E R This application by one of the accused of Complaint Case No.C1-2655 of 2005 is for the quashing of the order dated 12.5.2006 passed therein by Susri Sangeeta, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali at Hajipur , whereby cognizance has been taken under Sections 384 and 420 I.P.C. One Ajay Kumar Singh, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, filed the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleging that on 1.1.2005, Nilambuj Kumar Singh, one of the sons of the petitioner herein, came to his house and took him to his own house for taking food and there, it is alleged, he was confined in a room, warned not to raise hulla and at the point of pistol his signature was forcibly obtained on stamp papers. It is further alleged that he was compelled to write a letter to his wife for issuing 12 cheques as he himself was not an account holder and thereafter the said - 2 - Nilambuj Kumar Singh, brought the 12 cheques from his wife and forcibly compelled him to fill up all the cheques. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it would be apparent from a reading of the complaint petition that no allegations have been made against him and that as a matter of fact it was the complainant who had taken a loan from him to help in running his medicine and emery stones business and when he could not repay the same he filed the false complaint case in order to save himself from the burden of repayment. It has further been submitted that he, having superannuated as a teacher on 31.1.2000, had been paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards retirement benefits for which a copy of the Pension Payment Order dated 29.2.2000 is appended with the application as Annexure-2. The further submission on behalf of the petitioner is that earlier on 23.7.2005 he had filed a sanaha against the complainant alleging that the complainant was threatening him. It has further been submitted that the petitioner had given a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and on his refusal to pay, the petitioner had filed Complaint Case No.2760 of 2005 which on being transmitted under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Police Station, Hajipur Sadar P.S. Case No.136 of 2006 was registered and cognizance had been taken on 16.5.2006 under Section 138 N.I. Act. It is true that as per the instant complaint the occurrence took place on 1.1.2005 and the complaint was filed only on 14.9.2005, after a delay of 9 months but the fact remains that the said complaint was filed prior to the petitioner’s filing of Complaint Case No.2760 of 2005. The - 3 - counter case filed by the petitioner cannot be a ground for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the order taking cognizance. It will appear that before this Court on the basis of the statement made at the Bar regarding talks going on between the parties for compromise, opportunities were afforded vide orders dated 11.1.2008 and 21.1.2008 to the parties to see if compromise could be arrived at between them but, as it appears, there could be no amicable settlement of the disputes. It is true that the court below has taken cognizance after holding an inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. where apart from recording of the statement on S.A. of the complainant, 5 witnesses were examined and on a consideration thereof a prima facie case under Sections 384 and 420 I.P.C.was found to have been made out and accordingly cognizance had been taken. I find no apparent illegality in the said order. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner unfortunately happens to be his defence and the same cannot be looked into at this stage. He may, however, raise all these issues at the appropriate forum at the appropriate time. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 24th of April, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.