R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case bearing C -1 No. 1405 of 2009 including the order dated 9.12.2009 passed by the then Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had given friendly loan of Rs. 20 lacs to the petitioner. As a security, the petitioner initially paid a cheque of Rs. 2 lac but subsequently, the amount was altered to Rs. 20 lacs which was authenticated on the face of the cheque and that apart, an undertaking was also given subsequently. When the said cheque was presented before the Federal Bank, Jamshedpur on 30.3.2009, the Bank Manager who was in connivance with the complainant did not accept the cheque, rather asked the complainant to deposit it in another Bank. Accordingly, that cheque was deposited in Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jamshedpur. The said cheque got bounced with remarks " alteration requires drawers authentication". On receiving the cheque, the complainant asked the accused to authenticate the alteration made in the cheque but he refused to do so. Thereupon, a notice was sent calling upon the petitioner to make payment but he refused. On such allegation, complaint was lodged. It was registered as C -1 case No. 1405 of 2009 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. After holding enquiry, the court took cognizance of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. That order is under challenge.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that even if the entire allegations are taken to be true, no office of cheating is made out as the petitioner ha never been alleged to have induced the complainant fraudulently and dishonestly to part with the money, rather as per the allegation, the complainant had given friendly loan and thereby even if this allegation is accepted that the petitioner has taken loan but did not return the same, no offence of cheating is made out. As against this, Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant -opposite party No. 2 submits that right from the beginning the petitioner had intention to cheat the complainant and in that pursuit, the petitioner took loan but it was never returned to the complainant and thereby he can be said to have committed offence of cheating.
(3.) KEEPING in view the submission advanced on behalf of the parties, let me advert to consider as to whether the allegation made in the complaint does constitute offence of cheating or not ?;