R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(2.) THIS application is directed against the order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the then Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gumla in Complaint case No.56 of 2006 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner, who happened to be the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Gumla. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that a complaint was lodged by Rameshwari Devi alleging therein that there was an agreement between the complainant and the Om Prakash Pandey for selling a piece of land for a consideration amount of Rs. 7 lacs. As against that, a cheque of Rs. 6,88,900/ -was given by the complainant to the Om Prakash Pandey, opposite party No.3. Subsequently, Om Prakash Pandey backed out from his promise and thereby the complainant did approach to the Bank of this petitioner and filed an application praying therein to restrain Om Prakash Pandey from withdrawing the said amount which was deposited through cheque given by the complainant. Since, according to the petitioner, it was not permissible under the law, the petitioner could not do anything and under this situation, much thereafter a compliant was lodged by the complainant against this petitioner as well as Om Prakash Pandey alleging therein that in spite of making payment of the consideration amount, Om Prakash Pandey on one hand failed to execute deed of sale but on the other hand, he refused to return the money whereas this petitioner never did anything in order to get the amount withdrawn from the account of Om Prakash Pandey. On such compliant, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code was taken. That order is under challenge.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner in any view of the matter cannot be said to have committied any offence either under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the petitioner had never been entrusted any money nor has been alleged to have induced the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to Om Prakash Pandey nor the petitioner has been alleged to have misappropriated the amount and as such, entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance is fit to be set aside.;