- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 406/420/34 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of the complainant in brief is that the present petitioner Sanjay Ram approached to the complainant representing himself to be an agent of the Co-operative Department (Sahakarita Vibhag), Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and took him under confident that if he (the complainant or any body who is tribal, pays an amount of Rs.3,00000/- (Rupees Three lakhs) then he/they will be provided with a Scorpio car and the remaining balance amount to be paid in installments, as per the scheme launched by the Government. On this, the complainant replied him that he is having number of Adibasi friends who are willing to purchase the said vehicle to run the same on rental purpose. Thereafter, the complainant brought his number of friends and they paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner for getting benefit of the aforesaid scheme. They paid a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- in total to the petitioner. They were told by the petitioner that they will be provided the said vehicle within a week. But after laps of more than weeks when the victims were not provided the said vehicle, the complainant along with the said victims, went to the concerned department and enquired about this fact and they came to know that neither there is any such scheme lunched by the Government nor there is any person namely Sanjay Ram working there. Thus, they were cheated by the petitioner and accused no.2 who is father of the petitioner. Thereafter, they went to the present petitioner (accused no.1) and demanded to return their money. On this the accused no.1 issued three cheques to them two amounting Rs.50,000/- and third one is amounting Rs.2,00,000/-. When the victims deposited the said cheques to the Bank, the cheques bounced for insufficient amount in the account. Thereafter, even repeated demands made by the complainant and his friends who are victims but the petitioner never paid any amount to them. Hence this case.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has not given a single rupee to the present petitioner and all the allegations made against him is totally false. There is no document to show the petitioner ever received any amount from the complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioner never issued any cheque neither in favour of the complainant nor in favour of his friends.;