JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. — The appellant Muralidhar Satpathy, has filed the present writ appeal against an order dated 23.11.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.371 of 2006*, partly allowing the same by quashing cognizance under Section 138 N.I. Act, but declining to quash a criminal proceeding against the appellant under Section 420/34 I.P.C., which is now pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar (arising out of G.R. Case No.3507 of 2004).

2. The Writ Petition (Crl.) No.371 of 2006 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 23.11.2006, inter alia, with the following observations:

“In the instant case, as transpires from the F.I.R. and the Case Diary, in fact, there is no Real Estate Business of the petitioner and accused Pradeep Satpathy or either of them. Ac¬cordingly, the decision cited above cannot be attracted to the present case.

In the result, the proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the order of taking cognizance under Section 138 of N.I. Act is quashed, but so far as the proceeding under Section 420/34 I.P.C. is concerned,it shall continue against him.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.”

3. Sri G. Rath, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing a criminal proceeding, the learned Single Judge, has failed to apply the proposition of law formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal & others, AIR 1992 SC 604 and has not considered, whether the allegations made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected by the police are so absurd that no reasonable person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused.He further submitted that in the present case, the principles evolved in Ch. Bhajan Lal’s case (supra) should have been applied. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true scope of the judgment rendered in the case of Haridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and others v. State of Bihar and another, AIR 2000 S.C. 2341, inasmuch as, since the ingredients of Section 420/34 I.P.C. have neither been expressly stated nor indirectly suggested in the F.I.R., so as to constitute an offence of cheat¬ing by the appellant, the criminal proceeding against the appel¬lant ought to be quashed.

4. Sri Rath, learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the Court to the F.I.R. in the present case and the same is extracted hereinbelow :

“To

The Officer-in-Charge,

Lingaraj P.S., Old Town, Bhubaneswar.

Sir,

With no constraint, I am informing you to take immediate action that in the month of October, 2003, one Pradip Satpathy, S/o. Muralidhar Satpathy, 20, Housing Board Colony, Nageswar¬tangi, BBSR told me that his father being a Retd. Chief Engineer, has started a real estate business. For that he needs some cash urgently which he will return within one month. He asked me to help in this regard. Accordingly, I went to his home & consulted with his Father who also asked me to invest. Then, I arranged about 14,50,000/- (Fourteen Lakh Fifty Thousand) from my friends & handed over to him in his father’s presence in good faith and believe. But unfortunately, he did not keep his promise & did not return my money after several requests. During this period, he has given me several dates to return the money, but every time he failed taking one plea and the other. Today when I went to his house at 2. PM and asked him to return my money, he abused me in filthy language & threatened me to do away with my life. Having lost all hopes, I am filing this F.I.R. for immediate legal action against him.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

28.10.2004

Bhubaneswar Tapas Kumar Sahoo

Advocate, Plot No.216/40/1,

Aerodrome Area, BBSR,

Ph-94371