Advocates:
['CHANCHAL JAIN', '', 'KUSHAL KUMAR', 'TANYA SINGH', 'AKRITI SHREE', 'VIKALP GUPTA', 'TEJASWITA SAFALTA', 'KUMARI SUGANDHA', 'SAMEER SAHAY', 'SHAILENDRA KUMAR TIWARI']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI

----

Cr.M.P. No. 1966 of 2022

----

Arup Chatterjee, aged about 48 years, son of Sri Anup Chatterjee, resident

of 303, Madgul Habitat, Chandni Chowk, PO Kanke Road, PS Gonda,

District Ranchi

….. Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Dindayal Singh, s/o Devi Singh, r/o Mohalla Vidyanagar, Road No.3

Harmu, PO, PS Argora and District Ranchi

…... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate

Ms. Aparajita Bhardwaj, Advocate

For the State :- A.P.P.

For the O.P.No.2

:- Mr. A. Allam, Sr. Advocate

----

3/13.07.2022

This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal

proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No.1116 of 2013 including

order taking cognizance dated 02.07.2013 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi whereby cognizance of offence under

section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been taken and

summons has been directed to be issued against the petitioner, pending

in the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ranchi.

The prosecution story is based on the typed complaint

petition for the complainant namely Dindayal Singh. It is alleged

that the accused no.2 on behalf of the Care Vision

Infrastructure and Agrotech Ltd. fraudulently convinced and

motivated the complainant to invest money in the said company

with an assurance that after 12 months the money will be

returned to complainant with 12 % interest over the invested

money. It has been further alleged that the complainant

invested altogether Rs.3,00,000/- in the company. It is further

alleged that on maturity the accused no.2 had issued cheque of

Rs.3,36,000/- bearing cheque no.913947 of Bank of India

Kantatoli Branch Ranchi having account no.459920110000074

dated 16.01.2013.

It is alleged that the said cheque was deposited by the

complainant in his account in the said bank for encashment on

16.1.2013 however, the said cheque was returned unpaid on

2

16.1.2013 itself on account of insufficient fund. The accused

apologized for dishonor of cheque and at the same time

requested the complainant to redeposit the same in the bank

on 25.1.2013 for fresh clearance. It is further alleged that the

complainant on assurance by the accused again deposited the

said cheque on 25.1.2013 which too dishonoured on account of

insufficient of fund. The accused assured to the complainant to

redeposit the cheque again on 07.3.2013 and the said cheque

dishonoured again on 8.3.2013 on account of insufficient fund.

It is alleged that the complainant then sent a legal

notice dated 22.3.2013 and request was made to the accused

to make payment within a period of 30 days from the date of

receipt of the said notice and the sane notice was duly served

upon the accused on 23.3.2013. it is further alleged that the

despite the service of the said notice the accused did not make

the payment of dishonoured cheque to the complainant.=

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that the cheque issued by the petitioner was dishonoured and returned

back by the banker unpaid with return memo dated 16.1.2013 and

further again dishonoured on 25.01.2013 and third time on 08.3.2013 it

was dishonoured for the reason that 8payment stopped by the drawer9

and the complainant thereafter sent a demand notice through his lawyer

by registered post on 22.03.2013 under section 138 N.I.Act, however,

when the cheque amount remained unpaid then this complaint was filed

by the complainant on 03.05.2013.

She further submits that the cognizance is also not in

accordance with law and the judicial mind has not been applied in taking

co