JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by Smt. Suresh Bala, Vikas Ladia and N.N. Agarwal, who are said to be the Principal, Trustee and Vice-Chairman of the Management Committee, Dungarpur Public School, Dungarpur respectively against an order dated 22.4.2002 delivered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur whereby, an order of taking cognizance u/ss. 406, 420, 323 & 504 of the IPC was passed against the three petitioners and one B.P. Sharma, a Teacher in the said School. 2. A private complaint was filed in the said Court with the allegation that the School Management purchased some agricultural land for Rs. 16 lacs although it was worth Rs. 1 Crore and it was advertised that the School will have a good Library, Swimming Pool, Hostel for Girls, Horse-riding facilities along with Computer Course. However, no such facilities were subsequently provided by the Management. Further it was alleged that on 25.11.2000, the accused B.P. Sharma who is a Teacher in the said School misbehaved and belaboured the student Ankit S/o K.K. Gupta and also called him names. On complaint, the respondents suggested that the student Ankit need not study in their school and he may go to another school. The transfer certificate issued by the School did not bear the signatures of the District Education Officer and it was learnt that the recognition of the School was cancelled by the Government and hence the complaint. The said complaint was forwarded to the police station u/s. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. where a case was registered u/ss. 420, 323 & 504 of the IPC. However, after investigation, it came out that no criminal offence was disclosed. Hence, a final report was filed. The complainant K.K. Gupta protested and examined himself u/s. 200 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned Court passed the impugned order against which the petitioners have come in revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order. 4. An order taking cognizance u/ss. 323 & 504 of the IPC has been passed against the three petitioners as well, whereas, there was no allegation against the petitioners in respect of the said offences. Similarly, there is no material to suggest that an offence u/s. 406 of the IPC has taken place. 4. An order taking cognizance u/ss. 323 & 504 of the IPC has been passed against the three petitioners as well, whereas, there was no allegation against the petitioners in respect of the said offences. Similarly, there is no material to suggest that an offence u/s. 406 of the IPC has taken place. So far as the offence u/s. 420 of the IPC is concerned, I am of the opinion, that.there was no justification to take cognizance for the said offence. In order to establish that there was any intention to cheat, it has to be shown that it was from the very beginning when the initial advertisement for the school was issued. Maybe that the Management advertised to provide certain facilities and subsequently for some reason, they were not able to provide the same. In that eventuality, it may be termed as a civil dispute but it cannot be said that there was any intention to cheat initially. From the impugned order, it appears that under the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur visited and inspected the School premises. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has opined that since the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has not produced a certificate to the effect that the School stands recognised by the State Government or by the Central Government, it shall be presumed that it was never recognised. Needless to say that such a presumption cannot be raised. It is further mentioned in the order that, possibly, certain facilities were provided by the School Management. However it is not made clear as to what facilities have been provided. At the end, it is mentioned that there was difference between the promised facilities and the facilities actually provided and the facilities provided may be termed as negligible. However, it is not at all made clear as to what were the facilities which were provided and what was the difference between the promise and the actual performance. Needless to say that the learned lower Court has passed an order which does not speak well of him. 5. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order so far as it goes against the petitioners, is set aside.Revision petition allowed. *******