IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.1237 OF 2008 1. MOHAN KUMAR MISHRA @ MITHILESH KUMAR MISHRA, SON OF SHRI KAMOD MISHRA 2. RANJIT KUMAR MISHRA, SON OF SHRI MOHAN KUMAR MISHRA @ MITHILESH KUMAR MISHRA BOTH RESIDENT OF BENTA CHOWK, POLICE STATION LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MR. GOVIND KUMAR PODDAR, PARTNER M/S KUMAR ENTERPRISES, SUPRABHAT BUILDING, CEAT COMPOUND, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA …………………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES ********* 4 07/04/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Opposite Party No. 2 and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant is not the consignee agent with whom he had entered into a transaction and as such he does not have the locus to file this complaint case. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner no. 1 has defalcated and not paid Rs. Two lacs and odd to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant is the duly appointed consignee agent of the original agent and has stepped into the shoes of the agent and as such it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable by him. All these aspects of the matter cannot be 2 dealt with by the Court at the stage of taking cognizance. Accordingly, this application as far as it concerns the petitioner no. 1 is dismissed. As far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, he is the son of petitioner no. 1. It is a fact that the name of the firm is run by the name of petitioner no. 2 but he is not involved in the business inasmuch as he has not been issued the license. There is no allegation that petitioner no. 2 had entered into an agreement to purchase the medicines or any orders were issued for the purchase by petitioner no. 2. The complainant has also been able to establish that the money was paid to petitioner no. 2 and as such this Court finds that merely because the firm runs in the name of petitioner no. 2, he cannot be arrayed as an accused. In the circumstances, the order dated 06.10.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. 2765 (C) of 2007 by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna is hereby quashed as far as it concerned the petitioner no. 2, namely, Ranjit Kumar Mishra. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)