- (1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro in Cr.Rev.No.86 of 2012 affirming the order dated 29.6.2011 passed by the Sub - divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro in C.P. case no.597 of 2009 whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offence has been taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
(2.) BEFORE adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, case of the complainant needs to be taken notice of. . It is the case of the complainant -opposite party no.2 that he had cordial relation with the petitioner, who the other day conveyed the complainant that he had good relation with top officials of the Bokaro Steel Plant and as such, he may secure a job for him in Bokaro Steel Plant provided a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ - is paid to him. At the same time, he also assured that if he will fail to do so, he will be returning the money and in order to have faith on him, he gave a cheque of Rs.3,50,000/ - in favour of the complainant. When the petitioner failed to keep his promise, the petitioner asked the complainant to encash the cheque. When the cheque was presented before the Bank, it got dishonoured. Thereupon after giving statutory notice, a complaint case was lodged which was registered as Complaint Case No.597 of 2009. When the cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was taken, vide order dated 29.6.2011, it was challenged before the revisional court. The revisional court rejected the revision application. Being aggrieved with those orders, this application has been filed. The point which has been raised in this application is that admittedly the petitioner and the complainant entered into a contract whereby a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ - was paid by the complainant to the petitioner but the purpose for which it was given, it was never lawful and therefore, it can never be said that the cheque given by the petitioner which got dishonoured, was given towards legally enforceable debt and thereby the complaint cannot be maintained.
(3.) LEARNED counsel in support of his case has referred two decisions rendered in a case of Md. Faizal Khan @ Faizal Khan vs. State of Jharkhand and another [2012 (3) JCR 15 (Jhr)] and also in a case of Virendra Singh vs. Laxmi Narain and another [2007 (1) Crime 300] .;