of tax from the commercial vehicles was issued by this petitioner. As per terms of notice, the successful dealer was required to deposit half of the settlement amount immediately. The complainant Opposite Party No.2 had participated in the auction of settlement along with coaccused and others. The accused no.2 (this petitioner) anyhow managed to select the co-accused as successful highest bidder. This petitioner persuaded the complainant to take settlement in partnership with co-accused Binod Kumar to which the complainant agreed and a deed of partnership was also prepared and presented before Sub Divisional Officer (this petitioner) on 24.03.2011 and it was registered in the office of SDO as agreement no.8144 dated 24.03.2011. As per agreement half of the benefit of settlement was to go to the complainant and half to the accused no.1 and for getting the said benefit half of the settlement amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, i.e., Rs.4,75,000/- was to be deposited on 24.03.2011. The complainant and accused no.1 was requested to deposit half and half, i.e., to the extent of Rs.2,37,500/- each. The complainant further alleged that as per terms of agreement the petitioner got Rs.2,37,500/- deposited by the complainant. The petitioner after deposit of said amount issued settlement order in favour of the accused no.1 and thereby caused monetary loss to the complainant and thereby both the accused committed the offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 405 and
