D.K. Sinha, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the cognizance order dated 18.7.2003, passed by Smt. Prem Lata Tripathy, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 117 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 373, 385 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and further proceedings arising out of the order impugned aforesaid.
(2.) HEARD Mr. M.B. Lal, learned Counsel for the State as well as Mr. Anil Kumar on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
(3.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that petitioner -accused Ashok Kumar Mukhopadhyay and obtained loan to the turn of Rs. 80.000/ - from the informant opposite party No. 2, Santosh Ghoshal on 8.2.2001 but on repeated demand, the lent out money was not returned. The petitioner executed a deed in writing about borrowing the said amount with the promise to return the same on 22.11.2002. But after expiry of the said period when the complainant -opposite party No. 2 repeated his demand to return the said amount, the petitioner made subterfuge the matter on one pretext or another. Ultimately the complainant -opposite party No. 2 sent a legal notice on 28.4.2003 through registered mail demanding his money. On receipt of legal notice, the petitioner - accused went to the house of complainant -opposite party No. 2 and asked the inmates that the complainant -opposite party No. 2 may collect the said amount on the subsequent date. i.e. on 10.5.2003 from his house situated at Chandankiyari. The matter was conveyed to the complainant and pursuant to that, the complainant -opposite party No. 2 proceeded to the rented house of the accused -petitioner with two witnesses on the Auto -rickshaw on one Sunil Mahto where he found two unknown persons sitting in the house of the accused -petitioner from before. It is alleged that petitioner -accused appeared there with papers and pen and asked complainant -opposite party No. 2 to put his signature thereon on the assurance that he was about to deliver the amount to which opposite party No. 2 resisted and asked him to pay the amount first and only then he would put his signature. It is alleged that the two unknown persons, who were present there from before started compelling opposite party No. 2 to put his signature and on refusal there being made, they started abusing and assaulting him when the witnesses attempted to intervene in the defence of opposite party No. 2, one of the two unknown persons took out dagger from his possession and intimidated by putting it on the neck of the opposite party No. 2 calling upon him to put his signatures on the blank papers otherwise he would be killed. It is alleged that out of fear complainant -opposite party No 2 put his signature on two blank papers to which the accused petitioner took its possession. It is alleged that thereafter complainant was pushed out and in such scuffle the accused -petitioner took out Rs. 200/ - from the pocket of the opposite party No. 2 and also removed his wrist watch worth Rs. 250/ - and extended threat that he' would be killed in case he demanded his money again and that he was no longer having his money with him. In course of enquiry three witnesses were examined, who supported the allegation as made in the complaint petition by the opposite party No. 2 and being satisfied with such evidence and finding it a prima facie case, learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 341, 323, 385 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused -petitioner. It is relevant to mention that complainant failed to identify and brought the names of the two unknown persons on the record and, therefore, summons was directed to be issued against the sole accused -petitioner.;