JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to quash the order dated 25.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltonganj at Palamau in Complaint Case No. 1228 of 2019 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltonganj at Palamau has found prima facie material against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act besides inter alia the offence punishable under Sections 420/120B of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the two co-accused persons. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the complainant who is the owner of the land and cheated him by deceiving him to part with her landed property by making her execute a power of attorney in favour of the co-accused and son-in-law of the petitioner namely Taufik Ansari. On the basis of the power of attorney executed by the complainant, the petitioner and the co-accused persons sold six acres of land belonging to the complainant and on the complainant demanding the money due and payable to her in respect of selling of her property, the petitioner issued ten cheques in total worth Rs.1,65,25,000/- in respect of the consideration amount of the said land. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment but the same was dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued demand notice through her Advocate but even then, the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount and executed forged documents of sale deed in respect of the said land, without taking any consideration amount from the purchasers by sham transaction. 4. The complainant filed complaint case and on the basis of the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Daltonganj at Palamau found prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner for having committed the said offences as already indicated above. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner issued blank cheques with the direction that the amount shall be filled only after the confirmation of the petitioner for the purpose of security against the loan. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner paid back the loan and asked the complainant to return the cheque issued by the petitioner but the complainant did not return the same, on the ground that she has destroyed the same; but later on she used the said cheques and after dishonour of the said cheques, without any date of the petitioner, the complainant filed this false case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence punishable under Section 420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code is not made out. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 6. Though notice was served upon the opposite party no.2 yet no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and vide order dated 17.03.2025 the Predecessor Judge in the roster has appointed Ms. Juhi Kumari, the learned Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the opposite party no.2 7. Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Amicus Curiae on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner for having committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act as well as Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code therefore, the materials in the record is sufficient to constitute each of the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act as well as Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that the petitioner issued cheques, which were dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds in the account of the petitioner and the petitioner did not pay the amount mentioned in the cheques even after receipt of the notice and this is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 9. So far as the contention of the petitioner that he did not issue the cheque in respect of any date is at best a defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but certainly such defence cannot be considered at this stage to quash the cognizance order because it is a settled principle of law that defence of the accused person and the veracity of the evidence put forth by the accused, cannot be considered in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court, as that would be job of the trial court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Ors. 2004 ( 2) Supreme 501. 10. It is also a settled principle of law that the genuine prosecution cannot be stifled, in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as has been held in the case of Dr. Monica Kumar and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2008) 8 SCC 781 . 11. So far as the offence punishable under Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code are concerned, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of being in criminal conspiracy with the co- accused persons, deceiving and thereby inducing the complainant so deceived to part with six acres of her property which are sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420/120B of Indian Penal Code. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner be acceded in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 13. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the prayer as prayed for by the petitioner be acceded in exercise of the power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit is dismissed. 13. Before parting ,it is pertinent to mention here that Ms. Juhi Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae ably assisted this Court in disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition. Therefore, the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority is directed to pay Rs.7,000/- to Ms. Juhi Kumari, the learned Amicus Curiae, upon her presenting a web copy of this Judgement.