Rajesh Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84601 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2024 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Rajesh Dubey S/O Parmeshwar Dubey Resident of Village- Jalalpur Khurd, P.S- Kuchaikote, Distt.- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the State :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad For the Informant :

Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a complaint case punishable for offence under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant paid total Rs. 34 lacs to the petitioner for purchasing a piece of land and petitioner for security gave three cheques to informant, but the petitioner did not execute the sale-deed in favour of informant and when informant presented aforesaid cheques in Bank for encashment, the same got bounced due to insufficient fund.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that dispute is of civil nature and informant has got remedy under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84601 of 2024(3) dt.28-01-2025 2/2 the Specific Relief Act or he may file money suit. As a matter of fact, the informant runs a committee and used to take money from the local persons and on assurance that he shall give a hefty amount if they invest the amount in his committee, as a result of which, on assurance of informant, petitioner gave three blank cheques and taking advantage of the situation, the informant has filed this false case.

5. However, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that as per agreement between the parties, the informant paid Rupees 34 lacs to the petitioner and when petitioner failed to execute sale-deed in favour of the informant and refund aforesaid amount, the informant presented aforesaid cheques, which got bounced due to insufficient fund.

6. Considering nature of accusation and the fact that the cheques, issued by the petitioner, got bounced due to insufficient fund, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T