Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Roy and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC29 Apr 2013CR. MISC./41664/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a petition seeking to quash an impugned order taking cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC and Section 138 NI Act. The court declines interference noting the cheque was issued to an enterprise. Petitioners are advised to raise issues during charge framing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to raise issues at the stage of framing of charge.

Dilip Kumar Roy and Anr. Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41664 of 2012 (6) dt.29-04-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.41664 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== 1. Dilip Kumar Roy, son of Vinay Bhushan Roy, Resident of 19/K Abinash Chandra Banjerjee Lane, Kolkata-700010, West Bengal. 2. Maumita Roy, D/o Dilip Kumar Roy, Resident of Deepak Kumar Roy, A/169, Bagha Jatin, Kolkata-700092, West Bengal. .... .... Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Ashok Kumar Sinha, son of Late Bhagwat Prasad Sinha, F. No. 102, Maa Vindhyawasini Complex, Sheikhpura, Police Station-Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD ORAL ORDER

¶5

6 29-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This is an application for quashing the order dated 14.05.2010 passed by Smt. Rumpa Kumari, Judicial Magistrate,1^st Class, Patna, in Complaint Case No. 970 (C) of 2010, by which cognizance has been taken for offence under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶6

The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint that petitioner 1 was executed for distribution ship of sports good of Moumta Enterprises for Bihar and Jharkhand with the complainant. By the said agreement, the complainant gave Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash and he has been made partner of 15% in the said

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41664 of 2012 (6) dt.29-04-2013

¶8

business along with 10% interest for the amount invested by the complainant. It is further alleged that in spite of several request of the complainant, the business will not started and money was returned by the petitioners. Ultimately, a cheque of Rs. 1,10,000/was given but the same was bounced, even on notice the petitioners did not return the money.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, though, cheque was given in the year 2009, but notice was issued on 12.03.2010.

¶10

Having regard to the fact and circumstance, cognizance was taken against the petitioner no. 1 as well as petitioner no. 2 who is daughter of petitioner no. 1 has also made an accused. However, the cheque was issued in the name of Moumta Enterprises. Hence I am not inclined to interfere for order taking cognizance at this stage.

¶11

Accordingly, with this above observations, the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners may raise issue at the stage of framing of the charge.

¶12

(Gopal Prasad, J)

¶13

m.p.

Dilip Kumar Roy and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Roy and Anr. v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Kusheshwar Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Yadav @ Ram Babu Yadav @ Ram Babu Vs The State Of Bihar

Jai Shankar Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar

Rama Kant Jha and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Makhan Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar