Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 584 (PAT)

Krishna Murari Singh v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-02

RAKESH KUMAR

body2010
JUDGEMENT Rakesh Kumar and j. JJ. 1. On repeated calls none appeared on behalf of the petitioner either to press this petition or even to make a prayer for adjournment. Earlier also on 23.3.2010 when the case was called out none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and, accordingly, the case was ordered to be listed on 29.3.2010 and since then the case is running on the daily cause list. 2. The petitioner, while invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17.3.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Patna, in Cr. Revision No.306 of 1996. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside the order of framing of charge dated 20.5.1996 under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act which was framed in Complaint case No.1034 (C) of 1993. 3. The petitioner had filed a petition vide Complaint Case No.1034 (C) of 1993 on allegation of cheating and for an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. It was alleged that opposite party no.2 had issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner but when it was presented in the concerned bank, the same was not honoured as there was already a request made by the drawer of the cheque for stopping payment. On this allegation the case, pursuant to the aforesaid complaint petition, was proceeded and thereafter charges were framed against opposite party no.2 for the offences as mentioned above. 4. Aggrieved by the order of framing of charge, the opposite party no.2 filed revision vide Cr. Revision No.306 of 1996. By the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of framing of charge and remitted back the matter to the concerned learned Magistrate for passing an order of charge afresh. The learned Sessions Judge in its order dated 17.3.1998 has recorded that since after the cheque was not honoured by the bank, notice was not served on the drawer of the cheque within the prescribed period, offence under section 138 of the N. I. Act was not attracted in this case. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition filed by the opposite party no.2, remitted back the matter to the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision petition filed by the opposite party no.2, remitted back the matter to the learned Magistrate. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 17.3.1998 passed in Cr. Revison No.306 of 1996, approached this court by way of filing the present petition. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the present case and due to that reason no one is appearing to press this petition. 5. I have perused the impugned order as well as materials available on the record, I am of the view that there is no error in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Revision No.306 of 1996 on 17.3.1998. Accordingly, the petition stands rejected.