IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that complaints involving civil disputes should not be converted into criminal proceedings, and emphasizes the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. when the accused is outside the jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT :

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioner in this case is seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.02.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda, Bihar Sharif in Complaint Case No. 936 (C) of 2013 for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The complainant-opposite party no. 2 filed a complaint case in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda against the sole accused-petitioner who is a resident of the State of West Bengal having his permanent address as that of the State of Jharkhand.

4. From a bare reading of the complaint petition, it would appear that admittedly the complainant and the petitioner were good friends and they were residing together at one stage. The case of the complainant is that this petitioner had suffered loss in business and with an intention to help his friend, the complainant arranged a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-through his cousin brother, namely, Madal Lal Gupta. The financial condition of the petitioner improved whereafter he started a company, namely, “Shiv Shakti Air Cargo” in which he put Madan Lal Gupta as his equal partner. It is stated that on 07.04.2006 Madan Lal Gupta transferred a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-from his C/C account to the bank account of this petitioner in the Bank of India at Shyam Bazar Branch, Kolkata. There had been some issues with respect to the accounting of the firm, it is alleged that the petitioner had committed fraud with his partner Madan Lal Gupta. Madan Lal Gupta started demanding his money which he had given to the petitioner but the same was not returned whereafter he gave a power of attorney to the complainant which authorized the complainant to take legal action against the petitioner.

5. At this stage, it is alleged that the complainant submitted an application with the Officer-in-Charge, Shyam Pokhar at Kolkata on 28.07.2012 to call the complainant and the petitioner and made them enter into a written agreement whereunder the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-to the complainant-opposite party no. 2. It is alleged that after the said compromise, the petitioner issued few cheques of a sum of Rs.25,000/-each but later on it was found that instead of drawing the cheque in the name of Ajay Prasad, it was drawn in the name of Ajay Gupta. The complainant brought it to the notice of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner returned the two cheques and issued two bearer cheques in the name of the complainant for Rs.25,000/- each which the complainant encashed.

6. The allegation is that thereafter the complainant kept on demanding money from the petitioner, the petitioner promised him to return the money after two months but thereafter the complainant met the petitioner at the Bihar Sharif Railway Station and believing the words of the petitioner, he handed over two cheques to the petitioner but after receiving both the cheques, the petitioner refused to pay the amount. It is also alleged at this stage that when the accused demanded three more cheques from the complainant, a scuffle took place between the complainant and the accused and their friends. Allegedly, in the meantime, the petitioner fled away with the cheques which were handed over to the complainant. It is alleged that in this manner, the accused has committed fraud with the complainant. With regard to the alleged occurrence which took place on 09.07.2013 at the Railway Station, he met the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station on 10.07.2013 but the Officer-in-Charge refused to receive the complaint.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out at this stage that the dates mentioned in the complaint petition have been over-written, moreover, it would appear that the complaint petition was prepared in advance and was kept ready for filing which was filed on 11.07.2013 by over-writing the dates in paragrap