Cr. Misc. No. 10827 of 2009 Against the order dated 16.03.2009/17.01.2009 passed by Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1586(C)/2007. ************ Deepesh Kumar, S/o Shri Kishore Kumar, resident of NABARD Bank Staff Quarter No. A-1, 22 Punai Chak, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, Patna-800023, P.O.- Punaichak, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, Distt.-Patna. ……(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Shailendra Kumar, S/o Shri Ram Sharan Pandey, resident of Chaman Chak, New By- pass Road, P.O-Mohanpur Kachhuara, P.S.- Gaurichak, District-Patna-800020. -------(Opposite Parties) ************* For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Brijnandan, Adv. For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 16.03.2009/17.01.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1586(C)/2007 by which he has refused to discharge the petitioner. 2. The case of the complainant is that the petitioner had taken friendly loan of Rs. 1,45,000/- from the complainant and given undertaking that he would return the same by March, 2005 and if it was not done the complainant would be free to initiate appropriate proceedings against him. After much persuasion the petitioner allegedly gave him three cheques drawn in the 2 year 2007 which the complainant presented before the bank but due to paucity of funds in the account of the petitioner the three cheques bounced. Thereafter, the complainant gave legal notice to the petitioner and when he refused the present case was instituted. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in fact it is conceded by one of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner used to return some amount to the complainant and, therefore, it is difficult to believe the complainant that the petitioner had not returned the entire amount to the complainant. The further submission is that in fact the petitioner did not give him any cheques in the year 2007 as alleged by the complainant. These cheques had been kept as surety by the complainant which he presented to the bank by filling particulars and this false claim was created on the basis of such presentation. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 submits that these are questions of fact which can not be agitated appropriately at the stage of trial. 5. Since the facts are disputed and the scope of 482 and 227 Cr.P.C. are limited to the extent that the Court cannot at this stage assess the veracity of 3 the allegations, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. 6. The application is dismissed. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 4th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-