ORDER

1. Heard the parties at length.

2. This appeal by special leave has been filed challenging the judgment rendered by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court, as it then stood, whereby petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "CrPC") filed on behalf of the appellant for quashing the first information report lodged against him has been dismissed.

3. The short facts are that Madhusudan Ram Gupta, Respondent 2 filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad bearing Complaint Case No. 88 of 1998 for prosecution of Mis Gopalika Finance Corporation Limited, Sitarampur within the district of Burdwan and its two Directors, namely, the appellant and his brother Vijay Shanker (since deceased) under Sections 4201120-B IPC alleging therein, inter alia that Mis Gopalika Finance Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") was engaged in the business of financing the purchase of vehicles under the hire-purchase scheme and the complainant who was desirous of purchasing a truck approached the accused persons for financial assistance in the year 1991 whereupon the appellant and his brother Vijay Shanker agreed to finance the purchase of truck by the complainant on hire-purchase agreement. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreement, the complainant made over his part of the investment by paying a sum of Rs 1,60,000 to the appellant. He also handed over various documents to the appellant. Thereafter, on payment of balance price of the vehicle to the dealer by the financier, chassis was made over to the complainant, who spent a sum of rupees one lakh for building body of the truck whereafter the truck started plying. The complainant could repay only three instalments to the financier. In the meantime on 30-11-1991 the truck in question loaded with goods became traceless, for which the matter was reported to the police as well as the insurance company. The complainant submitted a claim before the insurance company to the tune of Rs 4,20,000. According to the complainant, thereafter on 20-7-1995, the appellant called upon him at his Sindhri house and induced him to permit the appellant to handle the insurance claim, which request was acceded to by the complainant on assurances given by the appellant that when the claim of Rs 4,20,000 is received from the insurance company, out of that a sum of Rs 2,60,000 which the complainant was entitled to receive would be paid to him. Upon this assurance a complaint was made by the accused persons before the West Bengal Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in which the complainant was also made a party and by order dated 23-7-1996 the entire claim was allowed and the insurance company was directed to pay Rs 4,20,000 with interest accrued thereon and pursuant thereto the insurance company issued a cheque for Rs 4,20,000 in favour of the Corporation which was encashed by the appellant but out of the said amount a sum of Rs 2,60,000 was never paid to the complainant in spite of assurances given to him by the appellant which necessitated filing of the complaint for prosecution of the accused persons.

4. Upon filing of the complaint, the Magistrate did not entertain the same but directed the police to register a case and investigate. Pursuant to the said direction, the police registered a first information report which was numbered as Sindhri PS Case No. 23 of 1998 dated 3-3-1998 under Sections 420/120-B IPC against all the aforesaid three accused persons including the appellant.

5. Challenging the first information report, the appellant moved the High Court on 11-3-1998 by filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the first information report and the consequent police investigation in which at the time of issuing notice police investigation was stayed but ultimately by the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the application whereafter a petition for grant of special leave to appeal was filed before this Court i