The main legal point established is that the lack of specific allegations against the petitioner and comparison with similar cases can be grounds for quashing a cognizance order.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

2. By order dated 18.06.2019 notice was issued upon the O.P. No. 2 and in the meantime interim order was provided. In the order dated 13.07.2021 it has been recorded that notice upon the O.P. No. 2 has been served which has been received personally by O.P. No. 2 and in anticipation of the appearance of the O.P. No. 2, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. The matter was again taken on 08.09.2021 and on request, the matter was adjourned for 30.09.2021. On 30.09.2021, again the O.P. No. 2 has not responded and inspite of repeated call and with a view to provide further more opportunity, the matter was adjourned for 09.12.2021. The same was the position on 09.12.2021. Much opportunity was provided in view of these orders to the O.P. No. 2 to appear and make out the case on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 and inspite of that, nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. Today also on repeated call nobody has responded on behalf of the O.P. No. 2. Accordingly, this matter has been heard on merit ex-parte against the O.P. No. 2 and is being disposed of.

3. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 419 of 2007 including the order dated 04.06.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby cognizance has been taken under sections 341, 420, 392/34 IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj against the petitioner, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

4. The O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint case stating therein that as he was desirous to purchase a Maruti 800 Car, he had visited the office of Mahindra and Mahindra Finance, where the present petitioner was the Senior Manager and it is stated that the co-accused Vikash Purwar and Ayub Khan asked that an amount of Rs. 49,938/- is required to be deposited as principal amount besides Rs. 40,000/- for instalment and thereafter an amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- would be sanctioned as loan at the rate of 9% per annum interest which is to be repaid in equal installment within 35 months. It has been stated that Opposite Party No. 2 after depositing Rs. 49,938/- and Rs. 40,000/- got the Maruti 800 Case delivered which was registered by Opposite Party No. 2 being Registration No. JH-01F-2974. It has further been stated that from time to time Opposite Party No. 2 had deposited considerable amount, inspite thereof, he received a notice for Rs. 30,000/- and on 23.04.2006, the vehicle was robbed by Prabhat Singh and Vikash Kumar and in spite of repeated attempts, the complainant did not get his vehicle back.

5. Mr. Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner with regard to the vehicle in question and inspite of that the petitioner has been made one of the accused in the complaint petition and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. He draws the attention of the Court to Para No. 2 of the petition and submits that there is allegation against the petitioner and one Vikash Kumar and Ayub Khan about the installment and interest part with regard to the finance of the vehicle in question. He further submits that in para no. 7 it has been disclosed that when complainant coming from Ranchi to Daltonganj on the vehicle in question, one Prabhat Singh and Vikash Kumar robbed alongwith 3-4 others persons and seized the vehicle. He further submits that so far these two persons are concerned, they moved before this Court in Cr. P.M. No. 2911 of 2017 and the cognizance against both of them have been quashed by this Court by order dated 14.02.2019. He