- (1.) Invoking the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ,,the Code), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Complaint Case No.C/1 -595 of 2012 including the order dated 24.04.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur taking cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
(2.) The facts of the case, which is relevant for the purposes of determination of the issue involved in this petition, in short, is that on the basis of a complaint filed by the complainant -Amit Kumar, the aforesaid case was instituted with the allegation that the complainant booked Flat No.104 in Durga Sai Estate, Nildih, Near Golmuri Club, Jamshedpur and out of the total consideration amount, the complainant paid Rs.2,89,125/ - through his mother and Rs.8,42,400/ - to the accused - petitioner through cheques and cash as an advance to the accused - petitioner who was one of the partner of Kailash Construction the builder who was engaged in the business of Promoters, Developers and General Order Suppliers but later on when the complainant came to know that there is some dispute with regard to title and possession of the land in question with TISCO and that the work of the construction of the building has been stopped by the order of the Honble High Court, he requested the accused to cancel the booking of the flat and to return the money advanced to him. The accused, thereafter, handed over an account payee cheque of the advance money with an assurance that the cheque will be encashed on its presentation but when the cheque was presented in the concerned bank, surprisingly it was returned unpaid showing "opening balance insufficient" in the account which was communicated to the complainant by the banker with cheque return memo dated 17.01.2012. Thereafter, the complainant send a legal notice to the accused through his lawyer on 27.01.2012 under registered post with A/D but the same was returned with an endorsement of the postal peon "Addressee always out of station" and in spite of getting knowledge the accused did not pay the amount to the complainant.
(3.) It appears from the order impugned dated 24.04.2012 that after examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation and on perusal of the relevant documents, the court finds a prima facie case under Section 138 of the Act against the accused and directed to issue summon to the accused. Hence, this revision.;