1. The petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance dated 03.02.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.2879 of 2015.

2. Plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that a bare reading of the complaint and the evidence of the enquiry witness do not constitute the offence punishable under section 420 IPC.

3. Mr. Sunil Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in transfer of registration of the car in favour of the complainant would not make the petitioner liable for prosecution in a criminal case under section 420 IPC.

4. Briefly stated, the complainant-Sumeet Kishore has filed the complaint which has been registered as Complaint Case No.2879 of 2015. He has pleaded that the accused, who is the petitioner, approached him to sell his car for Rs.1,20,000/-and promised to transfer the car in his name after cancellation of hypothecation. However, he did not transfer the car and after about 4 years came to him and promised that he would return the money and take back the car. But the accused did not return the money and when he contacted him over mobile, the accused threatened him.

However, he has admitted that the petitioner was in need of money and he