IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.9012 of 2008 Nayan Devi, wife of Bashist Narayan Tiwary, resident of New Mainpura, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna. …………………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Ram Pravesh Deo, son of Gireshwar Prasad, resident of Mohalla-Pitamber Nagar, Bihta, P.S. Bihta, District-Patna. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 10. 13.10.2011. The petitioner has filed this application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the summoning order dated 26.3.2007 passed by Sri C.M. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, Patna, in Complaint Case No.1099(C) of 2006 and also for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of the said complaint case. 2. In short, the case is that the complainant- opposite party no.2, Ram Pravesh Deo, filed the complaint case numbered as Complaint Case No.1099(C) of 2006 against the petitioner, Nayan Devi and her husband, 2 Bashist Narayan Tiwary, with the contention that he used to reside in the house of the accused, Bashist Narayan Tiwary, on rent but during that period, the accused persons started to put pressure upon him to enhance the rent on account of which there was hot exchange of word between them and the accused persons asked the complainant-opposite party no.2 to vacate the house. On which the complainant-opposite party no.2 told them to vacate the house after finding another house. Then accused persons asked the complainant-opposite party no.2 either to enhance the rent or to deposit Rs.50,000/- as advance saying to return that amount at the time of vacating the house. Thereafter, the complainant gave two cheques of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- of different dates as security money to the accused persons and also used to pay monthly rent as Rs.2500/- and ultimately, the complainant-opposite party no.2 vacated the house within three months. When at the time of vacating the house the complainant-opposite party no.2 requested to return the cheques, the petitioner assured him to give the cheques on return of her husband to the house but the same were not returned and with dishonest intention the accused persons 3 deposited the cheques in Bank to credit but the same were not credited in the account of the accused due to consciousness of the complainant-opposite party no.2. It is further alleged that while the accused persons were giving assurance to the complainant-opposite party no.2 to return the cheques but they did not return the same and, ultimately, notice was sent to the accused persons through Advocate but in spite of that also, the cheques were not returned to the complainant-opposite party no.2. It is also alleged that on 20.12.2006, in the evening at about 4 P.M., when the complainant-opposite party no.2 was returning to his house, accused no.1, Bashist Narayan Tiwary, the husband of the petitioner alongwith two unknowns scuffled with the complainant-opposite party no.2 at New Bailey Road and at the point of pistol, snatched the watch, chain and Rs.5000/- from the complainant-opposite party no.2. 3. After filing of the aforesaid complaint petition, on inquiry, the court of Sri C.M. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, summoned the petitioner and her husband, Bashist Narayan Tiwary, finding prima facie case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal 4 Code against them through the impugned order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused no.1, Bashist Narayan Tiwary, the husband of the petitioner and the complainant-opposite party no.2, Ram Pravesh Deo were old friends as they were under training at Bihar Regiment Centre in 1975 and after retirement in the year 2003, the complainant-opposite party no.2, alongwith his family used to reside in the house of the petitioner on rent and in that course the complainant-opposite party no.2 asked for money to the husband of the petitioner, Bashist Narayan Tiwary for deposit the security money to get the allotment of the Reliance Petrol Pump and, accordingly, the husband of the petitioner, Bashist Narayan Tiwary, gave Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainant and his family on 11.8.2004. After installation of the petrol pump, the complainant-opposite party no.2 left the house of the petitioner and when he was asked to return the money, he issued two cheques, one of Rs.30,000/- and another of Rs.20,000/-, which were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the account of the complainant-opposite party no.2 regarding which the husband of the petitioner, Bashist Narayan Tiwary, lodged 5 an F.I.R. bearing Danapur P.S. Case No.466 of 2006 on 9.8.2006 against the complainant-opposite party no.2 and others in which, after investigation, the chargesheet was submitted and cognizance has been taken under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence, with oblique motive only to put pressure upon the petitioner and her husband, the complainant-opposite party no.2 has filed this false case against them. 5. On going through the complaint petition (Annexure-‘1’ to the application), it appears that the allegation of the complainant-opposite party no.2 is that two cheques, as given to Bashist Narayan Tiwary, the husband of the petitioner as security, have not been returned to the complainant-opposite party no.2 and the same were deposited in the account by the husband of the petitioner for its clearance. The photo copy of both the cheques, issued by the complainant-opposite party no.2 in the name of the husband of the petitioner, have been annexed as Annexure-‘2’ to the application. Annexure-‘3’ to this application is the copy of the F.I.R. of Danapur P.S. Case No.466 of 2006, which goes to show that on the 6 basis of the written report of Bashist Narayan Tiwary, the husband of the petitioner, the said case was instituted on 9.8.2006 under Sections 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 and 406 of the Indian penal Code against the complainant-opposite party no.2 and others regarding dishonouring of two cheques issued by the complainant-opposite party no.2 against the loan amounting to Rs.2,60,000/- taken by the complainant-opposite party no.2 from the husband of the petitioner, Bashist Narayan Tiwary. The Complaint Case No.1099(C) of 2006 dated 21.12.2006 has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 against the petitioner and her husband after lodging of the aforesaid Danapur P.S. Case No.466 of 2006 on 9.8.2006 regarding the same cheques, which clearly indicates that the aforesaid complaint case has been filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 against the petitioner and her husband with oblique motive as a counter blast of Danapur P.S. Case No.466 of 2006. Moreover, apparently, there is nothing in the complaint petition against the petitioner as the cheques have been issued by the complainant-opposite party no.2 in favour of Bashist Narayan Tiwary, the husband of the petitioner. 7 6. Due regard being had to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the summoning order dated 26.3.2007 passed by Sri C.M. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Danapur, in Complaint Case No.1099(C) of 2006 as well as the entire criminal proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case against the petitioner are hereby quashed and the application is allowed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)