Rajendra Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4748 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -947 Year- 2013 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ====================================================== Rajendra Yadav Son of Late Jokhan Yadav resident of Mauza- Katriya, P.S. Alinagar, District- Chandauli (U.P) At present resident of Yadav Milk and Sweet , Yadav Hotel , shop no- 15, Ram Nagar Industrial Area, P.S. District Chandauli(U.P) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sanjay Tiwari son of Ranjeet Tiwari resident of Mohalla Gaurakshni, Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram town, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-12-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite party No. 2.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the cognizance order dated 29.5.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, lst Class, Sasaram, thereby taking cognizance of the offence under Section 418 of the IPC and issuing summon against the petitioner to stand trial in the case. The prosecution case in brief is that the accused, petitioner of this application, pursuaded the complainant to give him Ten lakh rupees for investment as he works as a Property Dealer in Ramnagar Indusrial Area, Varanasi with promise to return the principal amount after two years and half of the profit earned by the money will also be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4748 of 2015 (4) dt.11-12-2017 paid to the complainant. He also signed an agreement on the non judicial stamp but after expiry of two years even the principal amount was not returned by the petitioner so he has cheated the complainant. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is purely a civil dispute and in order to resolve the civil dispute this criminal case has been filed, whereas learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the other side submits that not returning any amount itself indicates dishonest intention of the petitioner so he has cheated the complainant.

Having considered the rival submission and on perusal of the record this Court finds that as per allegation Ten lakh rupees was given by the complainant and the same was to be returned after two years and the said money of the complainant was invested in sale and purchase of the land and the petitioner also promised the complainant to pay half of the amount of income is an allurement but even the principal amount has not been returned back, so at this stage the prima facie allegation of fraudulent deception and dishonest intention at the time of making promise inducing the complainant to deliver money cannot be ruled out. So finding a prima facie case of cheating, the application stands dismissed.

The petitioner will be at liberty to file discharge application.

Snkumar/- (Arun Kumar, J.) U T