Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Singh Aged ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 3430 Jhar

                                 -1-       Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020
Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Singh aged about 47 years, son of Shri
Shatrudhan Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No. 507, Block B,
Symphony Apartment, Near Sahjanand Chowk, Harmu Housing
Colony, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District-Ranchi-834002
(Jharkhand).
                                                   ..... ... Petitioner
                          Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. M/s Jain Transport Agency, having its Head Office at Jhumri
Tilaiya, P.O. & P.S. & District-Koderma and Branch Office at Lake
Road, Seva Sadan Path, P.O. GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Ranchi-
834001, through its Branch Manager, Mr. Shilendra Kumar Mishra
@ Sonu Mishra, son of Shri Shrinath Mishra, resident of Sahu
Sadan, S.N. Ganguly Road, P.O. GPO, P.S.- Kotwali, District-
Ranchi-834001.
                                             ...... ... Opposite Parties
                       --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner     :       Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate
For the State          :       Mrs. Mohua Palit, A.P.P.
For the O.P. No. 2     :       Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate.
                       ------
C.A.V. on 23.08.2021                       Pronounced on 15.09.2021.

1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Mohua Palit, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. 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.

3. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution and the criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 02.07.2019, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, in Complaint Case No. 1236 of 2019, whereby cognizance under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken against the petitioner.

4. On the following facts, the complaint case was filed:-

The prosecution case in short, as per the complaint petition dated 07.03.2019, is that the complainant / opposite

-2- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

party no. 2 is engaged in transportation business and that the accused no. 1 /petitioner is the C & F Agent of the accused no. 2. It is further alleged that the complainant / opposite party no. 2 had been providing transportation service to the accused on the instructions of the accused no. 2 and as such the complainant /opposite party no. 2 had been transporting tyres from the godown of the accused no. 1/ petitioner to various points of dealers on hire basis.

It is then alleged that from April 2017 to August 2017, the complainant / opposite party no. 2 provided transportation service to the petitioner, for which a sum of Rs. 1,89,538=00 fell due against the accused nos. 1 and 2, but the complainant /opposite party no. 2 was paid only Rs. 1,63,550=00 through cheque and a sum of Rs 25,988=00 remained due to be paid by the accused nos. 1 and 2.

Thereafter it is alleged that the accused no. 2 again instructed the complainant / opposite party no. 2 through its Branch Manager, Ranchi, to provide transportation service from September 2017 to December 2017 from the depot / godown of the petitioner to various destinations like Hazaribagh, Tilaiya, Kuju, etc. The complainant / opposite party no. 2 allegedly provided transportation service accordingly and a sum of Rs.2,95,417=00 fell due to be paid by the accused nos. 1 and 2 to the complainant / opposite party no. 2.

Thereafter the complainant / opposite party no. 2 allegedly demanded the said sum of Rs 2,95,417=00 from the petitioner who did not pay any heed to the demand, and then the complainant / opposite party no. 2 allegedly sent a legal notice to the petitioner, asking for payment of the due amount. However, the petitioner sent a reply to the said legal notice, stating therein that he had already paid Rs. 1,63,550/- for the transportation services rendered from April 2017 to August 2017, denying the liabilities of Rs. 25,988/- and also of Rs. 2,95,417/-.

-3- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

Thereafter the complainant / opposite party no. 2 allegedly also sent a legal notice to the Depot Manager at Ranchi of the accused no. 2 on 22.10.2018, requesting for the payment of the due amount but no response was received from the accused no.2 nor any payment made.

The complainant / opposite party no. 2 thus alleges that both the accused no. 1/ petitioner and the accused no. 2 dishonestly embezzled the sum of Rs. 3,21,405/- of the complainant/opposite party no. 2 under a criminal conspiracy.

5. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the O.P. No. 2 / complainant had rendered transportation services from April, 2017 to August, 2017, for which they have received full and final payment of Rs. 1,63,550/- through Cheque No. 671080 dated 27.12.2017. He submitted that the O.P. No. 2 / complainant has not raised any objection with regard to remaining amount of Rs. 25,988/- for that period. He further submitted that the petitioner is denying the liability of payment of Rs. 25,988/- and Rs. 2,95,417/- to the complainant-O.P. No. 2 on that ground. He further submitted that in the complaint petition itself it has been admitted that transportation charge was always payable by the accused No. 2 and the petitioner is used to pay the transportation charges to the complaint / O.P. No. 2 only after receipt of the same from the accused No. 2. He also submitted that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 1,63,550/- to the complainant / O.P. No. 2 as the transportation charges only for the period from April, 2017 to August, 2017 for that the receipt was also received.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is a case of civil nature and this Court may interfere and this is an abuse of the process of the Court. By way of referring to the reply to the counter affidavit and referring to the annexures, particularly of dated 26.03.2018, which is the acknowledgement / receipt, he further submitted that full and final settlement of amount, as stated therein, has been paid to the O.P. No. 2 and on that document, the entire case of the O.P. No. 2 is demolished.

-4- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

7. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, learned counsel for the petitioner relied in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315. By way of placing reliance on this judgment, he submitted that the guidelines have been issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Para-80, particularly in Paras-80(vi), 80(viii), 80(xi), 80(xii), 80(xiii) and 80(xiv) and the case in hand is fully covered in the light of these directions as indicated in para-80 and this Court may interfere in the matter and quash the entire criminal proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a case of State of Haryana & Ors. Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein in para-102 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the

-5- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. He further relied in the case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) Department of Home & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1395 of 2018 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3730 of 2016] reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraphs-26 and 27 held as follows:-

"26. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 749, para 13) "13. ... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged." The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.

27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt for the recovery of the money of Rs. one crore except by filing this criminal complaint.

         This action appears to be mala fide and
                                    -6-       Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020


          unsustainable."

10. On the ground of civil nature of case, he also relied in the case of Commissioner of Police & Ors. Versus Devender Anand & Ors in Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2017 and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that the I.O. and the other police officers were justified in not registering the FIR.

11. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of taking cognizance and the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

12. Per contra, Mr. Chanchal Jain, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that the petitioner, in spite of receiving the amount in question has not paid the amount in its entirety to the O.P. No. 2. The element of cheating is there and rightly cognizance was taken under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code. He further submitted that O.P. No. 2 provided transportation services to the petitioner, against which, a sum of Rs. 1,89,538/- became due and Rs. 1,63,550/- through cheque No. 671080 was drawn on Punjab National Bank and a sum of Rs. 25,988/- remained due upon the petitioner and in spite of the several requests made to the petitioner by the O.P. No. 2, the same was never paid. He submitted that even legal notice was also sent on 18.08.2018 to the petitioner. He further submitted that the O.P. No. 2 regularly raised bills for the transportation services provided between September, 2017 to December, 2017 amounting to Rs. 2,95,417/- and the same was never paid by the petitioner and the petitioner is obliged to pay the said amount of Rs. 2,95,417/- to O.P. No. 2 . He further submitted that it was the general practice / way of doing business that he used to receive instructions for transportation of the tyres and allied materials from J.K. Tyres and Industries (Accused No. 2), which was transported from the godown of the petitioner/accused no. 1 (C&F agent) to various dealers in Hazaribag and Koderma. He further submitted that on 26.3.2018 the petitioner issued a letter for full and final settlement of its account with accused No. 2, and, accordingly, the petitioner received an amount of Rs. 20,24,575.92. In that letter, it was indicated that if there arises any claim from any vendor

-7- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

(transporter / courier etc.), it will be settled by the petitioner. He also submitted that the said letter was hidden by the petitioner. He further submitted that even after receipt of the transportation charges from the company/ accused No. 2, the said amount was not paid to the O.P. No.

2. He further submitted that there is no requirement to state each and every fact in the complaint petition. He further submitted that in spite of the commercial transaction, the certain things have been hidden by the petitioner which amounts to cheating.

13. To buttress his submission, he relied in the case of Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. Versus Rugmini Ram Raghav Spineers Private Limited, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 529, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras-9 and 10 held as follows:-

"9. Some further dispute arose between the parties. Subsequently, the 1st appellant approached Akola Police for filing a complaint. However, the same was not entertained and registered stating that the transaction was purely commercial and civil in nature and the business disputes cannot be resolved by criminal prosecution.

10. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate No. 1 at Coimbatore for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 384 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC"). The court vide order dated 2-8-2004 issued an order directing Thudiyalur Police to register a case under Sections 406, 420 and 384 IPC and submit their final report within 3 months. The case was registered on 21- 8-2004 after receipt of the court order on 9-8-2004."

14. On the point of civil nature of case, he relied upon the case of Medchil Chiemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. Versus Biological E. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2000) 3 SCC 269, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-15 held as follows:-

15. In the matter under consideration, if we try to analyse the guidelines as specified in Shivalingappa case can it be said that the allegations in the complaint do not make out any case against the accused nor do they disclose the ingredients of an offence alleged against the accused or the allegations are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach to such a conclusion that there is

-8- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused? In the present case, the complaint as noticed above does not, however, lend credence to the questions posed. It is now well settled and one need not dilate on this score, neither do we intend to do so presently that the allegations in the complaint will have to be accepted on the face of it and the truth or falsity of which would not be gone into by the Court at this earliest stage as noticed above: whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true is to be decided on the basis of the evidence led at the trial and the observations on this score in the case of Nagpur Steel & Alloys (P) Ltd. v. P. Radhakrishna ought to be noticed. In para 3 of the Report this Court observed: [SCC (Cri) p. 1074, para

3)] "3. We have perused the complaint carefully. In our opinion it cannot be said that the complaint did not disclose the commission of an offence. Merely because the offence was committed during the course of a commercial transaction, would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a trial. Whether or not the allegations in the complaint were true was to be decided on the basis of evidence to be led at the trial in the complaint case. It certainly was not a case in which the criminal trial should have been cut short. The quashing of the complaint has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. We, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore the complaint. The learned trial Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint and dispose of it in accordance with law expeditiously."

15. He further relied in the case of State of Karnataka Versus M. Devendrappa & Anr., reported in (2002) 3 SCC 89, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras-7, 8 and 9 held as follows:-

"7. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab1 this Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings.

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction;

(ii) where the allegations in the first information

-9- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

8. In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. A note of caution was, however, added that the power should be exercised sparingly and that too in rarest of rare cases. The illustrative categories indicated by this Court are as follows: (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the

-10- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases

-11- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. (See: Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, and Raghubir Saran (Dr) v. State of Bihar) It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. (See: Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi.)"

16. By way of placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that the Hon'ble

-12- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

Supreme Court has held that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised to stifle legitimate prosecution, but power should be exercised ex debito justitiae to prevent abuse of the process of Court and at this stage, this Court may not interfere and may not examine the relevant facts and documents for coming to the conclusion that the case is made out or not. On these grounds, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition is fit to be dismissed.

17. On perusal of the complaint petition in paragraph No. 7, it has been alleged about the non-payment of the amount of Rs. 2,95,417/- and Rs. 25,988/- and in paragraph-9 of the complaint, it has been stated that the payment process is such that on instruction of accused No. 2, complainant provides transportation service to its C&F Agent (accused No. 1) and thereafter accused No. 2 used to transfer or handover transportation charge to its C&F Agent and who used to make payment to the complainant. The allegation of non-payment is further fortified in view of the letter dated 26.3.2018, wherein it has been stated that if there is any claim from any of the vendor (transporter/courier etc.) will be settled by M/s Singh Enterprises. This letter further suggests that he has received the charges from the accused No. 2, in terms of the dues of the petitioner, was required to pay the charge to the O.P. No. 2. The letter dated 26.03.2018, which has been brought on record by way of filing reply to the counter affidavit by the petitioner has been disputed by the O.P. No. 2 and it was submitted that the same was manufactured document. This is the subject matter of trial.

18. Prima facie, it appears that even after receiving the amount, the amount was not paid to the O.P. No. 2, at this stage whether the allegations in the complaint prima facie made out or not is required to be looked into. The same will be decided on the basis of evidence., led at the trial. In the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction. But that is hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating would elude from such a

-13- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

transaction. In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.

19. The case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering about granting the interim order and in para-80, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded on the principle / core issue, whether the High Court would be justified in passing interim order of stay of investigation and / or no coercive steps to be adopted, during the pendency of the quashing petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and / or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or no coercive steps to be adopted during the investigation or till the final report / chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The facts of the case is different from the present case and this case is not helping the petitioner, because prima facie the case is made out against the petitioner.

20. The case of Anand Kumar Mohatta & Anr. (Supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also of no help. It is well settled that the case is relating to civil dispute, the criminal case will not proceed further, in the case in hand, the allegation is non- payment and it has been held in the case of Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. (Supra) it is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred and will not go on. This judgment is also of no help to the petitioner. In the commercial matter the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors. (Supra) is also of no help to the petitioner, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the property mortgaged with the petitioner. Subject matter of that case was on different footing and this is also of no help to the petitioner.

21. In view of the aforesaid facts, prima facie, the case is made out against the petitioner. The Trial Court has taken the cognizance on examining the complainant on SA and also examining the enquiry witnesses and also on the documents filed by the complainant and prima facie came to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 420

-14- Cr.M.P. No. 2220 of 2020

of the Indian Penal Code is there, as there is allegation of cheating in the complaint and also the proper discussion is there in the cognizance order.

22. In view thereof, no relief can be extended to the petitioner in this petition. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands dismissed.

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated the 15th of September, 2021.

NAFR/ Amitesh/-