IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2889 of 2018 Upendra Singh, Aged about 35 years, S/o Late Hit Narayan Singh, R/o Gopalichak Siding, Jharia, P.O. Jharia, P.S. Borragarh, District Dhanbad. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Devendra Kumar Jaiswal @ Debendra Jaiswal @ Mannu Jaiswal S/o Late Arun Jaiswal. 3. Gourav Jaiswal, S/o Devendra Kumar Jaiswal 4. Roushan Jaiswal @ Roushal Jaiswal S/o Devendra Kumar Jaiswal. Serial No.2 to 4 are resident of Koiribandh, Near Railwayline Jharia, P.O. + P.S. Jharia, District Dhanbad. … Opp. Parties Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratiush Lala, Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. Order No.07/Dated- 09.01.2025 Heard Mr. Pratiush Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bhola Nath OJha, learned S.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2. 2. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed for setting aside/quashing of order dated 30.05.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 2018 whereby the Revisional Court upheld the order dated 01.02.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 3163 of 2017 by which the complaint petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that matter is of civil nature and no prima facie case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian penal Code is made out. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant has filed a complaint case against the opposite parties of this case for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code that the complainant has lent Rs.2,90,000/- on 04.02.2016 to the opposite party No.2 for starting a business which was not returned rather a cheque was issued but that was never presented before the bank because the complainant came to know that there was stop payment of cheque. Hence, the complaint petition was filed. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court without appreciating the materials and allegations against the opposite party No.2 have dismissed the complaint petition which is not duly sustainable and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State assisted by learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that no offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the I.P.C. are made out in this case. Therefore, the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court had validly exercised their jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint petition. There is no illegality in the impugned order and no merits in this petition which is fit to be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the record in the light of submissions of the parties. It appears that admittedly there was no transactions between the partis as alleged in the compliant petition and it is also alleged that a cheque was issued by the opposite party No.2 which was never presented before the concerned bank for clearance and no legal notice was issued to the opposite party No.2 and directly the complaint petition was filed for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. It appears that in the factual background of the case, the ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. are absolutely lacking in this case which has been properly considered by the concerned learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court. I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders and no merits in this miscellaneous petition which stands dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin