IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15330 of 2008 Pawan Sobti, son of T.K. Sobti, resident of A-72, Shishram Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59. …………………………………………………….Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Bhuwaneshwar Sharma, son of Late Syryadev Sharma, resident of village-Amritpur, P.S. Tajpur, District-Samastipur. ………………………………………Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: M/s. Arbind Kumar Sharma and Onkar Nath, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------------------------------- 4. 29.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. of Tajpur P.S. Case No.337 of 2006 registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from perusal of the complaint petition, which is the basis of the F.I.R. of Tajpur P.S. Case No.337 of 2006, the dispute appears to be of civil nature. 2 Moreover, Rs.3,00,000/-, which are said to be given to the accused persons including the petitioner by the informant, have already been returned to the informant through two bank drafts, amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively and the same have been encashed by the informant-opposite party no.2, which would appear from Annexures-‘2’ and ‘3’ to this application. It appears that the informant-opposite party no.2 has made allegation in the complaint petition, which is the basis of Tajpur P.S. Case No.337 of 2006, against the petitioner and two other accused, namely, R. Arora and Rakesh Ranjan, who are said to be the officials of the Power Link Micro System Private Limited, A-72, Shish Ram Park, Pankha Roh, Janakpuri (Uttam Nagar), New Delhi, that he was approached through his son, Murli Manohar Sharma alias Rinku, by the accused persons including the petitioner, to take the agency of the products of Power Link and they also assured him to appoint him as an authorized agent of the said Company and, accordingly, the informant-opposite party no.2 gave four bank drafts amounting to Rs.2,90,000 and cash Rs.10,000/- to the accused, Rakesh Ranjan, who issued receipt to him on behalf of the Power Link Micro 3 System Private Limited, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, but the accused persons including the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions as entered into an agreement. It is alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner, under conspiracy by playing fraud, cheated the informant-opposite party no.2. Since F.I.R. of Tajpur P.S. Case no.337 of 2006 has been lodged for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, which are cognizable in nature, I do not find any reason to quash the F.I.R. of the said case in inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed. P.S. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)