Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32620/2008allowed

Sunil Kumar Verma @ Sunil Kumar Sharma And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

2015-05-18Justice Smt. Anjana Prakash2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32620 of 2008 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -0 Year- null Thana -null District- PATNA ===========================================================

1. Sunil Kumar Verma @ Sunil Kumar Sharma.

2. Awadesh Kumar Verma.

3. Surendra Kumar Verma .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar.

2. Bhola Prasad son of late Ram Lakhan Prasad. .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

Mr. Binod Kumar-2 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18-05-2015 No one appears on behalf of the O.P. No. 2.

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 31.08.2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Patna City has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 84 of 2006.

The case of the complainant is that one Krishna Verma sought loan from the complainant for running his business. The complainant lent him then money which was returned by way of cheque which on presentation were dishonored. On account of such the present case has been instituted.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that evidently from the complaint petition it appears that all transactions

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32620 of 2008 dt.18-05-2015 2/2 had taken place between the complainant and the brother of the petitioners Krishna Verma and the petitioners had no role to play in the same and have been arrayed as accused only to pressurize the main accused.

Having gone through the complaint petition, I am inclined to agree that so far as the petitioners are concerned , no criminal offence is made out. Hence, the application is allowed and the order dated 31.08.2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Patna City has taken cognizance in Complaint Case No. 84 of 2006, is hereby quashed as against the petitioners.

(Anjana Prakash, J) Prakash/- U T