Dipeeka Dutta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50330 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2142 Year-2018 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ====================================================== DIPEEKA DUTTA D/O Rabindra Dutta Resident of 115/45, BOSE PUKUR ROAD, Tiljala, South 24 Parganas, District - West Bengal -700039. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR

2. Subhasis Gayen aged about 44 years, son of L.N.Gyaen, R/o 4/16, Rocky Path, P.S. Sakhspur, Sarani, Durgapur, posted as Sales Executive, Supreme Industries Ltd. At present residing at Patna, One Mall Dakbungalow Road, Crossing Near Maurya Lok Complex, 7th Floor Room No. 701 and 709, P.S. Pirbahore, Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aryan Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-08-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant.

The petitioner apprehends her arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Complaint (P) Case No. 2142 of 2018.

The prosecution case is that the complainant is the sales staff of M/s Supreme Industries Ltd. and the petitioner is a dealer. The complainant supplied furniture worth Rs.10,41,753/- to the petitioner. She issued cheque of the same amount which was dishonoured by the Bank.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 406 of the IPC is not attracted. He has submitted further that the cheque was given by the petitioner to the complainant in security in the year 2010. He has also submitted that the goods were to be supplied from Durgapur to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50330 of 2021(4) dt.17-08-2022 2/2 Kasba.

The impugned order shows that the petitioner assured the learned court below that she was ready to amicable solution of the dispute and, on her assurance, the order of no coercive steps was passed, but she never initiated for amicable resolution of the dispute.

It is an admitted fact that the cheque has been dishonoured by the Bank.

In view of aforesaid, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected. She is directed to surrender before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T