IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.28372 of 1999 VIVEKANAND VIVEK SON OF LATE DEVENDRA PODDAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KANNULAL ROAD, MITHAPUR, P.S. JAKKANPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA………… PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. KAPILDEO PRASAD SON OF NOT MENTIONED, RESIDING AT MAHADEVI APARTMENT, FLAT NO. 406, KASHI NATH LANE, EAST LOHANIPUR, PATNA…. OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 4 4-8-2010 On the last date the matter was heard in detail and when the court found no good reason to allow this application for quashing the order dated 19-11-1998 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist. Class, Patna whereby cognizance under sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. was taken in complaint case no. 563 ( C ) of 1998, a request was made not to pass final order on that date so that if possible, the petitioner may compromise the matter with the complainant, opposite party no.2. Today nobody has appeared for the petitioner to inform this court regarding out-come of efforts of compromise. This surely indicates that talks were compromised if failed have not succeeded. Now the matter has to be disposed of on merits. It 2 was submitted on behalf of petitioner that the allegations in the complaint petition are vague and directed against both the accused persons i.e. Mrs. Kiran Devi Poddar and this petitioner that practicing deceit the accused obtained a loan of Rs.1,02,000/- and although twice cheques were issued with assurance that the same will be honoured and the loan would get refunded, on both the occasions the cheques were dishonoured. There is no dispute that the cheques were issued by both the accused persons but on the basis of a document annexed with the complaint petition as annexure-7 it has been submitted that husband of the co-accused had allegedly undertaken to repay the entire amount of Rs.1,02,000/- along with interest to the complainant and that indicates that liability of repaying the loan even according to materials available with the complaint petition, was only upon the other co-accused and hence no cognizance should have been taken against both the accused. The other submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that in the complaint petition petitioner has been described as Chairman, Adarsh Niwas Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Ltd. but annexure-3 to this quashing application 3 dated 26-12-1995 would show that on 25-12-1995 one Vijay Kumar was elected as Chairman of the Co-operative Society in question and the co-accused Kiran Devi Poddar was elected as Secretary. On the basis of Annexure-A it was contended that the complainant has wrongly described this petitioner as the Chairman of the Co-operative Society. So far as the second submission is concerned, although the complaint petition was filed in the year 1998 after the cheques issued for the second time in September, 1997 were also dishonored, it is clear that the allegations of deceit-fully obtained loan relates to the year 1994 and nothing has been brought on record to show that at that time this petitioner was not the Chairman of the Co-operative Society. So far as the other submission is concerned, simply because husband of the co-accused gave a written undertaking to refund the money along with interest on the condition that no case should be filed by the complainant till then, it cannot be said that the allegations must be treated as confined only against co-accused, Kiran Devi Poddar. It is clear from the complaint petition that the alleged offences became clear to the complainant only on dishonor of successive cheques 4 issued by the accused persons. In the facts of the case, this court finds no merit in this quashing application. It is accordingly dismissed. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)