IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.3897 of 2009 Rajesh Kumar Singh, son of Yogendra Singh, resident of Village-Manopur, Police Station-Bhagwanpur, District- Begusarai. ……………………………………Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Sri Bacha Singh, son of Sri Singh San Singh, resident of Mohalla- Leelavert Apartment, Patliputra, Police Station- Pataliputra, District-Patna. ………….Opposite Parties. For the petitioner :- Dr. Amrendra Kumar No.1, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Pronoti Singh, A.P.P. ----------- 3. 02.12. 2010. Heard. This criminal miscellaneous petition is for quashing the order dated 14. 03. 2007, by which cognizance has been taken in Complaint Case No. 178© of 2007. The prosecution case is alleged that the complainant agreed to sale the bus to the petitioner for which it was agreed to sale the bus for consideration of Rs. 5,35,000/-. The petitioner was paid Rs. 2,25,000/- in cash to the complainant and the vehicle was transferred and give in possession to the accused person. It has further been alleged that Rs. 3,10,000/- was paid by cheque and the cheque was bounced. However, the complainant was informed about the said cheque was bounced to the petitioner then he assured to pay the amount within ten- fifteen days. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however, contended that allegation is to be absurd that 2 he will sale his vehicle for Rs. 5,35,000/-and give his consent for transferring the vehicle merely taking the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- and hence the allegation itself is absurd. It has further been contended that it is false to say that the cheque was bounced back for insufficient money in the account. He has making out a defence that the accused person stolen away two blank cheques which he kept in his house then the petitioner has reported the matter to the bank not to cash the aforesaid cheque lost. He has further stated with regard to the defence that he filed a complaint regarding loss of the cheque with allegation that said cheque was taken away by the present complainant. However, there is allegation and counter allegation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged that he has already taken his defence two months earlier and is not a defence subsequent to the filing of the complaint petition by the complainant in which he is an accused. However, be that as it may the allegation is concerned that it is highly absurd that a person will give his vehicle transferring even on part payment of Rs. 2,25,000/- and hence it is alleged that allegation Rs.3,10,000/- was paid subsequently is absurd. However, defence of the complainant that no 3 one will give his vehicle only on part payment even transferring the ownership appears to be patently absurd and inherent improbable quash the case. However, there is allegation and counter allegation that Rs. 3,10,000/- was not paid and cheque paid for Rs. 3,10,000/- bounced back ,though, the petitioner has earlier filed a case that his cheque was missing is question of fact that can only be decided by the trial and not at this stage, such stolen cheque may not be grant for quashing the case. I do not find any merit to quash the order of taking cognizance on these grounds. I do not find any merit to entertain the petition and hence the petition is dismissed. m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)