[2025:JHHC:38721] 1 Cr.M.P. No. 904 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 904 of 2023 Kali Charan Gope, aged about 31 years, Son of Srikant Gope, Resident of Village-Jarma Basti, Near Kali Mandir, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District-Dhanbad, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Indusind Bank Limited, represented through Rana Brijesh Singh (Power of Attorney Holder), son of Rana Arjun Singh, resident of Shastri Nagar, Urmila Tower, Near Laxmi Petrol Pump, P.O. and P.S. Bank More, District-Dhanbad. ….. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Sinha , Adv. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra , Addl. PP For the Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shivangi Mishra, Adv. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of CrPC with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the entire criminal proceeding as well as the order taking cognizance dated 13.06.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Dhanbad in connection with C.P.Case no. 1131 of 2021 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 4,46,000/- dated 19.02.2021, in discharge of his part legal liability of debts towards the complainant bank. The said cheque on being presented, was dishonoured because of the reason -Fund Insufficient. The complainant served a legal notice through his Advocate on 02.03.2021 demanding payment of the cheque amount and the same was received by the petitioner on 04.03.2021, as per the tracking report procured from the website of [2025:JHHC:38721] 2 Cr.M.P. No. 904 of 2023 the Postal Department. As the petitioner did not pay the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, the complainant- opposite party no. 2 filed the Complaint Case No. 1131 of 2021 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhanbad and learned Magistrate keeping in view the materials available in the record, found prima facie case for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and found sufficient materials to proceed against the petitioner and issued summons to the petitioner. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that allegation against the petitioner is false. The Petitioner lodged C.P. case number 2350 of 2021 inter alia against the complainant bank for compelling the petitioner to open an account in the bank and issue cheques and compelling the petitioner to put signature on the loan agreement, hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 5. Learned Addl. PP and learned counsel for the Opp. Party no. 2 on the other hand, vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the undisputed fact remains that the signature of the petitioner appears on the cheque; which was issued by the petitioner. It is the case of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of part legal liability. The only contention of the petitioner that he has no legal liability and the same is at best a defence, which the petitioner can put forth during the trial of the case; but certainly the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit, be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the undisputed fact remains that the petitioner has signed a cheque of his own account and handed the same over to the complainant and before filing the complaint by the complainant, the petitioner has no grievance and the only contention of the petitioner that the cheque was issued after the [2025:JHHC:38721] 3 Cr.M.P. No. 904 of 2023 petitioner was compelled to do so; but since the undisputed fact remains that the cheque issued in favour of the complainant bears the signature of the petitioner and the contention of the petitioner that the same was not in discharge of any legal liability, is at best his defence which the petitioner can take during the trial of the case but certainly, the same is not a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 22nd December, 2025 Smita /AFR Uploaded on 03.01.2026