IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.16822 of 2009 BIRANCHI PRASAD NANDA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 19.7.2010. Heard both the parties. The facts which have been stated in the complaint petition could never indicate to the court that it was an intentional act of the petitioner so as to cheat the complainant and thereby induce him to deliver the property. The allegation is that a cheque which was sent for collection to the branch of the petitioner’s bank, i.e., Bank of Baroda was returned with an endorsement “signature not scanned”. On the mere statement of this fact, no court could reach any conclusion that it could be constituting an offence under Section 420 of the Penal Code. So far as the summoning of the petitioner under Section 323 of the Penal Code is concerned the inherent improbability is that a responsible public servant like the petitioner who was the Chief Manager of the bank could never be get up from his chair to abuse or assault anyone who could have visited him in any connection. Considering the inherent improbability - 2 - and the absurdity of the allegation and also consider that the offence under Section 420 IPC was not made out, the whole prosecution initiated through complaint petition no.233(C)of 2009 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that if there could be any cause of action for the complainant to approach any forum for redressal of his grievance as a consumer, that shall not be affected by the present order. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha, J. )