Disposed

Kumar Jeetendra v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC16 Apr 2014CR. MISC./16825/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court disposed of a quashing application under Section 482 CrPC regarding a cheque bounce and cheating charge. The court held that oral statements of payment are not gospel truth. It directed the petitioner to file a compromise petition in the lower court as the offences are compoundable.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; petitioner allowed to file compromise petition in the court below.

Kumar Jeetendra Vs State Of Bihar and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.16825 of 2014

¶2

====================================================== Kumar Jeetendra son of Sri Ramchandra Singh, resident of village - Nagla, P.O. - Nagla Kinjar, P.S. - Kinjar, Dist. - Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Madhurendra Prasad Verma son of Sri Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Verma C/o - Sri Krishnanandan Prasad Sharma @ Sharma Jee, Ambedkar Path, Canera Bank, Anishabad, Patna Branch, Khoja Imali, Phulwarisharif, P.O. AND P.S. - Phulwarisharif, Dist. - Patna. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 3 16-04-2014 The present application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for quashing the order dated 9.8.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.674 (C) of 2010 by Smt. Rashmi Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Patna, whereby and whereunder the Magistrate concerned after taking cognizance of the offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has summoned the petitioner to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dispute in question relates to non-payment of Rs. 88,300/- by the petitioner to the opposite no.2. It is submitted that the petitioner has already paid Rs.75,000/- in cash to the complainant

¶3

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16825 of 2014 (3) dt.16-04-2014

¶4

¶5

out of the said amount for which he has already given receipt on a plain paper and the petitioner is ready to pay the remaining amount to the tune of Rs.13,300/- to the complainant.

¶6

Be that as it may, the oral statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in respect of payments made in cash to the complainant, cannot be taken as a gospel truth and the same cannot be a ground for quashing the order summoning the petitioner to face trial. However, since the offences alleged are compoundable in nature, the petitioner would be at liberty to file compromise petition in the court below if the parties settle the dispute amicably. It is needless to say that if such a compromise petition is filed in the court below, the Magistrate concerned shall dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶7

With the aforesaid observations, the present application is disposed of.

¶8

Md.S./-

¶9

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Kumar Jeetendra v. State Of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumar Jeetendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Babu Roy @ Sanjeet Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Nandu Singh @ Nand Kishore Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Sujeet Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Maheshar Sah and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar

Ramashish Mandal and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Baidyanath Sahu and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar