IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16141 of 2008 Pranav Kumar Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Ganga Sagar Singh --------------------- Opposite parties -------- 4 9-9-2011 This is an application for quashing the order dated 3.5.2007 passed by Sri S.P.Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 3537(C) of 2006 whereby he took cognizance against the petitioner and one Manoj Sahay under sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and also under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and directed for issuance of summon against the petitioner. Prosecution case as stated by opposite party no.2 by filing a complaint in brief is that he was in good term with this petitioner, on 5.12.2001 petitioner came to his house, introduced accused no.1 as his brother-in-law, made a request to accommodate a loan of rupees one lac as he was in need of that, considering petitioner’s request opposite party no.2 accepted to advance rupees one lac which was written on a non-judicial stamp with two post dated cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each by accused no.1. Money was not refunded. Opposite party 2 no.2-complainant met petitioner and accused no.1 to return the amount on which accused no.1 told him to deposit one of the cheques after 1.8.2006 but on submission of the same that was bounced, again accused persons were approached and they assured him to deposit both the cheques after two months that was done but again bounced, legal notice was sent through lawyer but no reply. Hence the complaint petition. Submission on behalf of petitioner is that loan was advanced to accused no.1, written agreement was executed on his behalf, cheques were issued by him, on their bouncing notice was sent to accused no.1 but liability has been extended to this petitioner also even making allegations contrary to written document which never can be accepted specifically when one of the enquiry witnesses namely Sanjay Kumar examined on behalf of opposite party no.2, is stating about his going to the house of opposite party no.2 where accused no.1 Manoj Sahay requested for rupees one lac to open Clinic which was given by opposite party no.2 on written agreement. Cheque was also issued by him which was bounced. 3 Under the circumstance discussed above, no case is made out against petitioner for any of the offence of the IPC, so cognizance taken against him by order dated 3.5.2007 is bad in law. The same along with whole prosecution case fixing criminal liability upon the petitioner is quashed and the application is allowed. AI ( Mandhata Singh, J.)