JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr. PC. is directed against the judgement of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 26th August, 1982, whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order of learned Munsif Magistrate. Tonk, dated 26th February. 1982, issuing summons to the non-petitioners for offences under sections 420/120 I.P.C. 2. A complaint has been filed by the petitioner on 18th April, 1981, against 8 accused persons under section 420/120 B IPC. It has been alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were doing the business of money lendihg in the firm name Mithalal Pannalal. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 obtained an expat decree against the complainant for a sum of Rs. 21,200/- from the court of Additional District I Judge, Tonk. Another decree was obtained by the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the Court of Munsif Malpura. The accused persons being If registered money lenders had filed an account in the aforesaid court in which the amount has been shown as having been paid by the complainant. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the complainant had paid the entire amount after filing of the suit and no amount was due against him. It has been further alleged that the accused persons in a malafide manner submitted an execution petition No. 37/71 in the court of District Judge, Tonk and in that execution petition it was not mentioned that the amount had already been paid by the complainant. The accused persons malafidely and in an illegal manner got attachment of the petrol pump of the complainant situated at Malpura and got the sale confirmed. The complainant then filed revision before the High Court which was dismissed. The complainant thereafter submitted a special leave petition before the Supreme Court where the confirmation of sale was cancelled. In view of these circumstances it has been prayed to punish the accused persons of the offences punishable under sections 420/120 B IPC. The learned Munsif Magistrate Malpura by his order dated 12th June, 1981, dismissed the complaints taking the view that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. The petitioner aggrieved against the ; aforesaid order filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Tonk. The learned Munsif Magistrate Malpura by his order dated 12th June, 1981, dismissed the complaints taking the view that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. The petitioner aggrieved against the ; aforesaid order filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Tonk. Learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, by his order dated 4th Feb., 1982, allowed the revision and sent the case back for further inquiry to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, who transferred the case to Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. According to the petitioner, he filed certain documents before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who after taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner and the documents took cognizance in the case and summoned three accused persons by order dated 26th February, 1982. The accused persons then filed a revision against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 26th February, 1982. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 26th August, 1982, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and quashed the order of taking cognizance against the accused persons. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr. PC. 3. It was contended by Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was enough material before the learned trial court for taking cognizance in the case and the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that even if no offence is made out under Section 420 IPC, an offence under Section 209 IPC is made out on the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Mr. Gupta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the complaint is totally false. There was no question of making any payment of money by the complainant. Though a decree was obtained against the complainant on 6th February, 1972, but no grievance at any stage was raised prior to filling of the present complaint on 18th April, 1981 that the amount had been paid by the complainant and the decree was obtained fraudulently. There was no question of making any payment of money by the complainant. Though a decree was obtained against the complainant on 6th February, 1972, but no grievance at any stage was raised prior to filling of the present complaint on 18th April, 1981 that the amount had been paid by the complainant and the decree was obtained fraudulently. It was further pointed out that though an application was submitted under order 21 rule 90 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the sale on 12th May, 1972 but in this objection petition also it was nowhere alleged that the expat decree was obtained fraudulently or that the amount in question was paid by the complainant to the accused persons. It is further submitted by Mr. Gupta that in the account submitted by the accused persons, the amount was not shown payable from the complainant on the ground that suit had already been filed I for the realisation of the said amount. 4. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and thoroughly perused the record. 5. According to the admitted facts of the case an exparte decree was obtained by the accused persons against the complainant on 6th February, 1972. That decree has become final and no proceedings have been taken by the complainant so fart setting aside the said decree. When proceedings for sale of a petrol pump belonging to the complainant was taken by the decree-holder then an objection petition mi filed by the complainant under order 21 rule 90 Cr. P. C. on 12th May, 1972, Inter-alia on the grounds that the proclamation of sale was not done in a proper manner and on account of other irregularities in the proceedings for sale. The said objection petition has been read out before this Court as a whole but it does not find and mention that the complainant had paid the decretal amount or that the decree itself was obtained fraudulently. The petitioner, though, was an advocate but did net raise any plea at any stage that the amount had been paid by him. It is only in the present complaint filed on 18th April, 1981, after 9 years, that the projection n raised for the first time that he had paid the amount to the accused persons. The petitioner, though, was an advocate but did net raise any plea at any stage that the amount had been paid by him. It is only in the present complaint filed on 18th April, 1981, after 9 years, that the projection n raised for the first time that he had paid the amount to the accused persons. Admittedly no receipt has been filed for the payment of a huge amount of rupees thousand and odd and the entire case in the complaint has been based on the ground that in the accounts filed by the accused persons they had not shown any amount due against the complainant. The accused persons have given a clear explanation that the amount was not mentioned in the accounts because they had filed a suit for recovery of the amount against the complainant. The complainant stated that the amount was paid by him six months after the filling of the suit. Such plea on the face of it appears to be false as there is nothing in support of the above allegation except his own bald statement. Apart from that as already mentioned above an expert decree has been passed on 6th February, 1972, and thereafter execution petition was also filed and petrol pump of the complainant was attached but no such plea was taken by the complainant in the objection petition under order 21 rule 90 Cr. P.C. that the decree itself was in executable as the payment had already been made by his to the accused persons. Though the complainant went up to the Supreme Court for setting aside the proceedings for sale and the proceedings were set aside by the Supreme Court by order dated 4th February, 1980, but no such plea was taken even before the Supreme Court or before this Court that there was no question of filing execution when the decree itself was null and void being detained fraudulently, la view of all these circumstances there was hardly any ground or justification for taking any cognizance under section 420 IPC against the accused persons and the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, was right in quashing such proceedings against the accused persons. 6. There is yet another aspect of the case that even if the allegations contained in the complaint may be taken to be correct, no offence under section 420 IPC is made out. 6. There is yet another aspect of the case that even if the allegations contained in the complaint may be taken to be correct, no offence under section 420 IPC is made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show as to how an; offence under section 420 IPC is made out in the present case. Learned counsel to submitted that an offence under section 209 IPC is made out. In this regard it is suffice to mention that under section 195 Cr. P. C. no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 209 IPC except on complaint in writing of that court or of some other court to which that court is subordinate. Admittedly in the present case the complaint has not been filed by the trial court which have passed the expat decree nor any superior court has filed any such complaint. Th: i question of thus taking cognizance under section 209 IPC did not arise. Be that ai it may, I have already held above that in the facts and circumstances of this cases, there is no merit in the complaint itself and no criminal offence at all is made out against accused persons. 7. In the result, I find no force in this petition and it is dismissed. *******