- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, as also learned counsel for the complainant opposite party No.2.
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 25.1.2000 passed by Sri S. K. Agnihotri, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro at Chas, in C.P. Case No.120 of 1998, whereby the cognizance for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 323 of the I.P.C., was taken by the learned Court below against the petitioner. A complaint petition was filed by the O.P. No.2 Ram Bahadur Singh before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, wherein it is alleged that the complainant handed over a cheque bearing No. SSS 160517 drawn upon United Bank of India, for Rs.2,05,000/- as security, to the accused petitioner, who was engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares, for purchasing the shares of SAIL and with an understanding that the cheque would be encashed after the purchase of the shares of SAIL, but when the complainant demanded back his cheque or shares, neither the shares was given to the complainant nor the cheque was given. It is also alleged that when the complainant demanded his money at the house of the accused, there was an altercation and he was driven out of the house. It appears that the complainant supported his allegations in his statement recorded on solemn affirmation and the Court below on the basis of the statements made in the complaint petition and the statements of the complainant on solemn affirmation, took cognizance for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 323 of the I.P.C., against the petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner is absolutely illegal and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, in as much as, the petitioner had given the money to the complainant as friendly loan, which was returned thorough the cheque by the complainant and when the cheque was produced in the Bank, the cheque bounced and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant. Learned counsel has submitted that in any event, there is no allegation in the entire complaint petition that the said cheque was ever enchased by the petitioner or any money was entrusted to the petitioner and accordingly, no offence can be said to be made out for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the impugned order taking cognizance is absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.;