JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.:- The petitioners have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order dated 10.2.2003 passed in Complaint Case No.3078 of 2002/Trial No.1154 of 2003 by the court of Sri S.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, summoning the accused-petitioners, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, finding prima facie case under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. In brief, the case is that the opposite party no.2, Om Prakash Prasad, filed the complaint petition, numbered as Complaint Case No.3078 of 2002, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, against the accused-petitioners alleging therein that her mother retired from the post of teacher in the year 2000 and from the money received by her after retirement she gave Rs.2,60,000/- to him to do business on choice. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 talked to his friends to purchase a vehicle Tata-407. In that course, in the month of May, 2000, the accused-petitioner no.2, Bijay Pathak, came to his house and asked him to get available the loan from the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited, Calcutta, of which the branches are at many places including at Muzaffarpur. Thereafter, on being asked by the opposite party no.2 that he had Rs.2,60,000/- and the remaining amount is required to purchase the vehicle Tata-407, the accused-petitioner no.2 told him that the money would be arranged and told him to put his signature on the paper. In the third week of May, 2000, the petitioner no.2, Bijay Pathak alongwith the petitioner no.1, S.K. Trithraj Himmat Singh alias Tirthraj Himmatsinghka, came to his residence and told that the paper is ready. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 reached to Muzaffarpur, where quotation of Rs.4,08,000/- for purchase of the vehicle Tata-407 was given to him, out of which down payment of Rs.79,000/- on 23.6.2000 and of Rs.1,81,000/- on 24.7.2000 were made by him and the remaining amount of Rs.1,48,000/- was financed by the accused-petitioners for which Rs.10,000/- per month was fixed. Thereafter, the opposite party no.2 reached to Muzaffarpur, where quotation of Rs.4,08,000/- for purchase of the vehicle Tata-407 was given to him, out of which down payment of Rs.79,000/- on 23.6.2000 and of Rs.1,81,000/- on 24.7.2000 were made by him and the remaining amount of Rs.1,48,000/- was financed by the accused-petitioners for which Rs.10,000/- per month was fixed. The opposite party no.2 on 10.11.2000 on relying upon the assurance of the accused-petitioners handed over the draft of Rs.1,23,000/- to the accused-petitioners of which Rs.40,000/- was for the installment of four months, for which receipts were given to him, and the remaining amount of Rs.83,000/- was for the purchase of a second hand jeep but the accused-petitioners did not give the statements of the money or provide the second hand jeep. After repeated demand, the accused-petitioners returned cash Rs.83,000/- through cheque on 6.12.2000, which was deposited by the opposite party no.2 in the Central Bank of India, Trimul Branch, Muzaffarpur, for clearance but the same was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of accused-petitioner no.1. As such, the accused-petitioner committed the offence of cheating by taking Rs.83,000/- from the opposite party no.2. Later on, the accused-petitioners sent a notice to the opposite party no.2 demanding Rs.1,18,000 from the opposite party no.2 and also took the cheque of Rs.83,000/- , as handed over to him, giving threatening. 3. After filing of the complaint petition by the opposite party no.2, the court of Sri S.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrte, First Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, on inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, summoned the accused-petitioners, finding prima facie case under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through the impugned order dated 10.2.2003. 4. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners made submission that in terms of the compromise entered into between the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited, Calcutta and the opposite party no.2 in Miscellaneous Case No.6289 of 2001 pending in the court of 8th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta, the opposite party no.2 was required to pay Rs.81,200/- before 20th of February, 2002 in full and final settlement of the dues of the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited after consideration of the payments already made and on adjustment of Rs.83,000/- by returning the Cheque No.735028 dated 6.12.2000 for Rs.83,000/- by the opposite party no.2 to the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited. It was also agreed between the parties that in case of payment of a sum of Rs.81,200/- by the opposite party no.2 to the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited, Calcutta, the opposite party no.2 will be entitled for a rebate of Rs.1,200/- and in case of default, the receiver will be entitled to seize the vehicle again, which would appear from Annexure-‘2’ to this application. Accordingly, the opposite party no.2 returned the cheque of Rs.83,000/- to the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited, Calcutta but he did not pay the amount of Rs.81,200/- till February, 2002. Therefore, notice was issued on 30th of November, 2002, by the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited to the opposite party no.2 for payment of the said amount, which would appear from Annexure-‘4’ to this application. As such, the opposite party no.2 with malafide intention and only to put pressure filed this complaint case making false allegation against the petitioners. It has also been submitted that as per Section 138(b) and (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the notice is required to be sent to drawers of the cheque within thirty days of the receipt of the information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and if the drawer of the said cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee within fifteen days the complaint would be lodged. But from the complaint petition, it is clear that there is no averment about sending the notice by the opposite party no.2 to the petitioners regarding dishonour of the cheque and payment for the said amount, which is suffice to show that this complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no.2 with oblique motive. 5. Perused the complaint petition. 5. Perused the complaint petition. The opposite party no.2 has made allegation against the petitioners that they were handed over Rs.1,23,000/-, out of which Rs.40,000/- was for payment of four installments and rest Rs.83,000/- was to get available the second hand jeep but the petitioners did not make the arrangement for the second hand jeep and on being made request by the opposite party no.2 for return of Rs.83,000/- a cheque of Rs.83,000/- was handed over to him by the petitioner no.1, which was dishonoured but there is no averment in the complaint petition about sending the notice to the petitioner no.1 by the opposite party no.2 regarding dishonour of the cheque and payment of the said amount. Annexure-‘2’ to this application is the order dated 17.10.2002 passed in Misc. Case No.6289 of 2001 by the 8th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta, in which the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited was the petitioner and the opposite party no.2 and others were opposite parties. The said order disclosed that the case was disposed of in terms of the compromise between the parties. Accordingly, Rs.81,200/- was to be paid till 20 February, 2002 by the opposite party no.2 and there was also term of agreement to pay Rs.83,000/- by returning the cheque issued by the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited to the opposite party no.2. Annexure-‘3’ to this application is the letter written by the opposite party no.2 to the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited, Calcutta regarding handing over the cheque of Rs.83,000/- to it. Anneuxre-‘4’ to this application is the notice dated 30th of November, 2002 issued by the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited to the opposite party no.2 regarding non payment of Rs.81,200/- till 20.2.2002 with a request to pay the same till 15.12.2002. As such, the complaint case appears to have been filed on 23.12.2002 by the opposite party no.2 with oblique motive, after receiving the notice sent by the Ideal Financing Corporation Limited, Calcutta, on 30th of November, 2002 for payment of Rs.81,200/- only to harass the petitioners. 6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.2.2003 passed in Complaint Case No.3078 of 2002/Trial No.1154 of 2003 by the court of Sri S.K. Jha, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Application allowed.