Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Laik, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Protest cum Complaint Petition No. 1750 of 2013 including the order dated 10.07.2014 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under Sections 418/406 of I.P.C.

3. A complaint case was instituted by the complainant – opposite party no. 2 on 27.02.2013 alleging therein that the petitioner and the complainant were having friendly relations since long and the complainant was having the business of cement etc. at Bhuli. It has been alleged that on the request of the petitioner in the month of May 2009, the complainant had given a friendly loan of Rs. One lac to the petitioner on the assurance that the same shall be returned within a month. In order to clear the debt, the petitioner issued a cheque no. 18353 dated 11.06.2009 for an amount of Rs. One lac in favour of the complainant payable at Bank of India, Bhuli branch. It has been alleged that on presentation the cheque got dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The complainant has also alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently and dishonestly cheated the complainant.

4. The complaint case was sent to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. which led to institution of Katras (East Basuria) P. S. Case No. 63 of 2013. Investigation resulted in submission of final form and on being noticed, a protest petition was filed by opposite party no. 2 which was treated as a complaint petition and after perusing the same, cognizance was taken under Sections 418 and 406 of I.P.C. vide order dated 10.07.2014.

5. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 10.07.2014 has stated that the entire dispute is civil in nature as the same is related to taking a loan of Rs. One lac from the complainant. It has been stated that earlier a complaint case was filed on the same set of allegations under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act which resulted in acquittal of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the subsequent complaint instituted by the opposite party no. 2 is barred as the same contains the allegations which were levelled in the earlier complaint in which the petitioner had been given a clean chit. It has been stated that even otherwise the ingredients of cheating are clearly lacking as there was no dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the very inception of the transaction and in such fact circumstances, no case under Section 418 or 406 of I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel while assailing his contention on double jeopardy had referred to the case of “Mahesh Chand Vs. B. Janardhan Reddy & Another” reported in (2003) 1 SCC 734 [: 2003(1) JLJR (SC) 192] “Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Incorporated & Ors.” reported in (2011) 1 SCC 74, “Kishore Kumar Gupta @ Kishori Prasad Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr.” reported in (2012) 2 JLJR 213.

6. On the basis of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Mr. S. K. Laik has submitted that a case was instituted earlier and the subsequent case does not have any similarity as the earlier case was with respect to dishonour of cheque whereas the latter case which forms the subject matter of the present application is with respect to the deception, cheating and criminal breach of trust on the part of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that mere acquittal of the petitioner in the case under Section 138 of N. I. Act cannot have any bearing in the subsequent complaint as both are with respect to different set of allegations and the same cannot be