- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the State.
(2.) THE opposite party No.2 has not appeared in spite of notice. On the last date i.e., on 24.8.2012, the opposite party No.2 had appeared in person and on the prayer of the opposite party No. 2, and with the agreement of both the parties, this case was fixed for today, making it clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in this case, but in spite thereof, the opposite party No.2 has not appeared in this case. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 18.3.2011 passed by Sri M. K. Tripathi, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in G.R. No. 2672 of 2010, whereby, an application filed by the petitioners for discharge was rejected by the Court below. The petitioners have been made accused in Dhurwa P.S. Case No.118 of 2010 corresponding to G.R. No.2672 of 2010, wherein, there is allegation against one Dilip Kumar and these petitioners to have taken Rs.8,90,000/- from the informant for sale of a land, but the said land was not sold to him. Accordingly, F.I.R was lodged against the petitioners. It appears that an undertaking dated 6.7.2009 has been made which is a part of the F.I.R itself, wherein the co-accused Dilip Kumar had accepted that he had taken Rs.8,90,000/- from the informant and he had undertaken to return the said amount. On the said undertaking, the petitioners have also put their signatures as witnesses.
(3.) IT also appears that subsequent to filing of this F.I.R , a complaint case No. 1638 of 2010 was filed by the same informant namely, Manoranjan Prasad Sinha in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and in the said complaint case, only Dilip Kumar has been made accused. According to the said complaint petition, the said complainant has stated that he had paid Rs.8,90,000/- to Dilip Kumar, being a middle man for settlement of the sale of the land and it was also stated that when the land was not sold to the complainant, the said accused, Dilip Kumar had issued a cheque of Rs.8,85,000/- in favour of the complainant on 20.7.2010. IT is the case of the complainant that rupees one Lakh was returned to the complainant in cash by the said accused, Dilip Kumar. The said complaint case was filed in view of the fact that the cheque had been dishonored. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case, as it would be apparent from the complaint case that the payment was made only to Dilip Kumar and not to these petitioners and subsequently, the said Dilip Kumar had issued cheque in favour of the complainant, who is the informant in the present case, though the cheque bounced. Learned counsel pointed out from the impugned order that this fact was brought to the notice of the Court below and it finds mentioned in the impugned order, but this was not taken into consideration by the Court below. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as it is apparent from the complaint petition that the money was given to Dilip Kumar and it was Dilip Kumar who had issued the cheque in favour of the informant. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for discharge.;