Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., for the State. No one appears on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 inspite of valid service of notice.

2. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Complaint Case No. 699 of 2005 including the order dated 02.08.2005 passed by Smt. Kusum Kumari, learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. A complaint case was instituted by one Rajendra Prasad Yadav (opposite party No. 2) wherein it was alleged that there was an agreement between the accused persons including the petitioner and the complainant for purchase/sell of tractor 275 DI of Mahindra and Mahindra made on hire purchase and according to the said agreement the complainant had handed over 35 cheques to the accused persons. It is alleged that the accused persons had assured the complainant that they would return one cheque after the other to the complainant on payment of installment against the financed amount for the said transaction.

4. Allegation has also been made that though the complainant used to regularly pay installments to the accused persons but the accused persons with a view to extort money from the complainant had withheld all the cheques which became apparent after the complainant was served with a notice of a criminal case instituted against him by accused No. 5 who is also a colleague of the petitioner and the accused No. 2 to 4.

5. Upon enquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and by examining the complainant on solemn affirmation as well as the witnesses cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 323, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that perusal of the complaint petition do not reveal any offence which can be said to be made out against the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services having its office at Mumbai in Maharashtra and it is totally absurd to claim that the petitioner along with other accused persons had come to the branch office in Jamshedpur and has finalized the deal. Learned counsel further submits that since some amount was not paid by the complainant in terms of the agreement he was directed to do so on which the complainant had issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,05,753/- dated 03.04.2004 bearing Cheque No. 153130. However, the cheque which was issued by the complainant was got dishonored and subsequently the accused no. 5 had instituted a compliant case at Bhopal in Complaint Case No. 11537 of 2006. Learned counsel submits that as a retaliation to the complaint case instituted by the accused no. 5 the present complaint case has been instituted. It has, therefore, been submitted that apart from the fact that no case is made out from a bare reading of the complaint petition the institution of the compliant case itself is tainted with malice and is a malafide act on the part of the complainant. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Otheres vs. Bhajan Lal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

7. Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P., on the other hand, has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the complainant was induced by the petitioner and other accused persons to give the cheques and having connived with each other the accused persons have committed a criminal breach of trust.

8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is the Managing Director of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and the allegations which