Advocates:
['UMESH KUMAR CHOUBEY', '', 'ASHOK KUMAR SINGH', 'APP', '', 'TAPAS ROY']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1708 of 2015

Binay Bihari Sharan

……

Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Horilal Mahto

……

Opp. Parties

---------

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Tapas Roy, A.P.P.

07/Dated: 23/06/2022

By order dated 08.06.2017, notice was issued upon O.P. No. 2.

Valid service of notice is on record which suggests that O.P. No. 2 has

personally received notice. However, O.P. No. 2 has not put his appearance till date.

Today on repeated call also, nobody responded on behalf of O.P. No. 2.

Accordingly, this petition is being heard and disposed of in absence of O.P. No.2.

Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.12.2012

whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under section 138 N.I. Act

in connection with Complaint Case No. 264 of 2012, corresponding to T.R. No. 162 of

2014, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chatra.

Mr. Umesh Kumar Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the alleged cheque in question was issued by the petitioner and in terms of

statutory provision under N.I. Act notice has not been issued to the petitioner which is

apparent from the complaint itself. He further submits that notice has been served

upon wife of petitioner who has left for her heavenly abode in the year, 2021. He

further submits that in the entire cognizance order there is no discussion of

compliance of statutory provision.

Mr. Tapas Roy, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no

illegality in the cognizance order.

The Court has perused the cognizance order dated 06.12.2012 and

finds that there is no discussion of date of cheque and issuance of notice upon the

2

drawer of the cheque and in terms of statutory provision to file complaint case has

not been disclosed. In a case of 138 N.I. Act, these facts are required to be disclosed

in cognizance order which is lacking in the case in hand.

Accordingly, cognizance order dated 06.12.2012 passed in connection

with Complaint Case No. 264 of 2012, corresponding to T.R. No. 162 of 2014, pending

in the Court of learned C.J.M., Chatra, is hereby set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass afresh order in

accordance with law.

I.A. No.4343 of 2022 filed for early hearing of the petition stands

disposed of as the matter has been taken up.

This petition stands allowed and disposed of.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Satyarthi/