AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J.

1. In both the petitions, the facts and points raised are same and similar and the parties are also the same and therefore, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In these petitions, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the SDJM Pakur in PCR Case No. 34/2006 and PCR Case No. 35/2006 respectively whereby, the learned SDJM Pakur rejected the petitions filed by the petitioner purported to be under Section 251, Cr. P.C. for discharge of the accused persons and for closing the prosecution.

3. The relevant facts in short are that the complaint Ashok Kumar filed two complainant cases against the petitioner Dinesh Kumar Jalan, being PCR Case No. 34 of 2006 and PCR Case No. 35 of 2006. In PCR Case No. 34 of 2006, the complainant alleged inter alia that that on 20th May, 2003, the complianant being the owner of M/s. Ashoka Stone Works transferred the entire assets of M/s. Ashoka Stone Works by a Registered Deed of Sale for consideration of Rs. 40 lacs out of which, Rs. 12,50,000/- was to be paid by way of Post Dated Cheques. It was further alleged that as the Cheque was issued in the name o