Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1042 (JHR)

Amish Kumar Barnwal v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-11

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2013
ORDER By the Court. - This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 07.01.2006 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 377 of 2005, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance against the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC. 2. It appears that petitioner is the proprietor of Gateway Gallery and deals with business of data conversion, data scanning and other data related projects. It is alleged that the petitioner induced complainant for doing data conversion and scanning work and assured the complainant that he will get immense benefit within a short span of time, It is further alleged that on the assurance of petitioner, complainant deposited Rs. 5,35,000/- with the petitioner for procurement of data conversion work. Accordingly, the said work awarded to the complainant. It appears that complainant completed the work and demanded money from, the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner issued three cheques total of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant. It is alleged that when one cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited with the bank, the same was dishonored, owing to inadequacy of the fund in the account of petitioner. Thereafter complainant filed the present case alleging therein that the petitioner had cheated him. Thus, he committed an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 3. It appears that the learned Judicial Magistrate, on inquiry, come to the conclusion that, prima facie, offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out. Thus he took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC vide order dated 7.1.2006. The said order impugned in this application. 4. Sri Satrughan Lal Burnwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that non-payment of money arising out of contract is simply a breach of contract for which a civil suit lie as, the dispute between the party is of civil in nature. He further submits that only because a cheque has been dishonored no offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out. Accordingly, he submits that order of cognizance is bad. therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the submission. I have gone through the record of the case. Accordingly, he submits that order of cognizance is bad. therefore, liable to be quashed. 5. On the other hand, Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the submission. I have gone through the record of the case. It is an admitted position that petitioner induced complainant for doing data entry work and on the said assurance took Rs. 5,35,000/- from him. It further appears that as per the assurance given by the petitioner complainant completed the work. It further appears that when complainant demanded money after completion of work, three cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- given to him by the petitioner, which according to the complainant, never encashed. Under the said circumstance, complainant did the 'work of data conversion work on the assurance of the petitioner' that he will get huge profit. It further appears that after completion of work petitioner issued three cheques total of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of complainant. 7. Illustration (h) of Section 415 of the IPC runs as follows: "(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats." 8. In the instant case petitioner induced complainant that if he will do data conversion work then, he will earn huge profit and on the said inducement he took Rs. 5,35,000/- from the complainant: It further appears that the complainant after completing the work demanded money, but petitioner instead of giving money gave him three cheques, which never encashed. 9. Under the said circumstance, in my view, as per Illustration (h) of Section 415 of the IPC the acts and omission on the part of petitioner, prima facie, constitute the offence of cheating. Thus, in my view, offence under Section 420 of the IPC is made out. Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned order, which requires any interference by this Court. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.