Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 937 (JHR)

Vivek Dada v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-04-26

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. On 24.04.2018, the learned APP was directed to inform about the stage of the case, but since he is unable inform about the same, this application is being disposed of based on the materials available on record. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 155 of 2007, by which cognizance has been taken u/s 403 I.P.C. and not u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner is the complainant, who had instituted a complaint against the accused persons, where it was alleged that the accused No. 2 was inducted as a partner in the business run by the petitioner. It has been stated that the partnership came to an end in the year 2002 and the truck which was purchased out of the fund of partnership fund, was clandestinely sold by the accused persons. The account of the partnership firm was closed in the year 2003 after the end of the partnership. The complaint had subsequently received a legal notice that two cheques which were issued in favour of accused No. 2 had returned unpaid. Although the account was closed in the year 2003, the complainant alleged that without his consent and knowledge, the unused cheques were misused by the accused persons. Upon conducting enquiry cognizance was taken u/s 403 I.P.C. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the cognizance was not taken u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the complaint had thought it fit to take cognizance u/sj 403 I.P.C. If the petitioner is aggrieved that even if a case is made out u/s 420, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, cognizance was not taken under the said sections and if in course of trial such allegations are found to be prima facie present, the complainant has an alternative remedy praying for alteration of charge. At this stage it would not be proper to cause any interference in the impugned order dated 21.06.2007. This application stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation.