IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the abuse of process of law and the lack of judicial application in taking cognizance.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 21.03.2017 in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 317 of 2016, G.R. Case No. 2184 of 2016, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the prosecution case has been initiated on the complaint lodged by the Complainant/Informant (O.P. No. 2 herein) in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 295/2016 and the same was sent for registration of F.I.R. u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the same was registered as Town P.S. Case No. 316/2016 u/s 323, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation has been alleged in the said complaint by the O.P. No. 2 that the accused/petitioners is of same caste and there has been business term between them from before. The accused Ashutosh Kumar Lal is the son of Deepak Kumar Lal and the accused Sobrati Ansari is the staff of Deepak Kumar Lal.

It has been further alleged that in June 2013 the accused Deepak Lal had given a loan of Rs. 7 Lacs through cheque to the Complainant/ Informant and had taken two undated cheques for Rs. 7 Lacs and 3 Lacs respectively as security, saying that when the loan of Rs. 7 Lacs would be returned to the accused, then he would return both the undated cheques to the Complainant/Informant.

It has been further alleged that the business term was going on between the Complainant/ Informant and the accused Deepak Lal and the capital of the Complainant/Informant invested in the business of liquor of Deepak Lal and Rs. 8,30,000/- was deposited with the accused Deepak Lal regarding which the accused has requested to adjust Rs. 8,30,000/- in the amount of loan and to return both the undated cheques, upon which the accused Deepak Lal had given the accounts of transactions in writing to the Complainant/Informant from which it is demanding Rs. 17,10,339/- adding the interest of 5% per month till April 2014 and after deducting Rs. 8,30,000/- the demand of Rs. 13,65,000/- was made till January, 2015 adding 5% interest. The Complainant/ Informant (O.P. No. 2 herein) showed his inability to make payment of the said amount and demanded both the undated cheques which were not given by the accused.

It has been further alleged that the accused Deepak Lal had filed a case before the court below on the basis of both the cheques. In the meantime Panchayati was held but the dispute was not settled. The Complainant/Informant received a notice regarding issuance of cheque of Rs. 7 Lacs and 3 Lacs, thereafter the accused told him that the matter will be settled and for the same the dated 13.3.2016 was fixed to sit in the house of Raj Karan Pandey to obey the verdict of Panch.

The complainant/Informant further alleged that on 13.3.2016 at about 12.00 noon he went to the house of Raj Karan Pandey for panchayati where the accused and witnesses were present. The accused told that he would withdraw the amount but after seeing the written account upon which the complainant/informant gave him the written account, which was given to Ashutosh Lal by the accused Deepak Lal. Thereafter the complainant/informant asked for the documents then all the three accused persons assaulted the complainant/ informant and took out Rs. 5,000/- from the pocket of the complainant and due to intervention of the witnesses and other persons, the complainant/informant was saved and the accused persons gave threatening. The complainant/informant went to the police station to inform the police but the police did not register the case and gave assurance to the complainant that the amount and the document of transactions would be returned