Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2086 (RAJ)

Chandra Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2012-10-05

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgments. 2. Instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner complainant being aggrieved of the order dated 26.6.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Merta City in Revision whereby the Revisional Court whilst entertaining the revision filed by the respondent No. 2 accused reversed the order dated 7.7.2008 passed by the A.C.J.M. Merta City in Criminal Case No. 182/2008 and quashed the cognizance taken against the respondent No. 2 for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner complainant submits that in this case the Revisional Court without referring to the statement of the complainant recorded under Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code and without proper application of mind to the material available on record, proceeded to quash the order taking cognizance. He submits that the order taking cognizance passed by the Magistrate was a reasoned order and without any justification, the Revisional Court has reversed the same. He submits that in this Case, the accused took a loan of sum of Rupees five lacs from the petitioner with the specific promise that he would return back the amount within a period of one month but the accused actually never intended to make good his promise and refused to make repayment of money, and therefore, the intention of. the accused right from inception was to cheat the petitioner. lie, therefore, prays that the accused was rightly held responsible and summoned for the offence under Section 420 Indian Penal Code and the order passed by the Revisional Court deserves to be set aside. 4. Per contra, Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Dhaka appearing for the accused has vehemently opposed the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is simply a commercial transaction which is being attempted to be given colour of an offence, and therefore, the Revisional Court has rightly quashed the order taking cognizance. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent and supports the order passed by the Revisional Court. 6. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent and supports the order passed by the Revisional Court. 6. Having considering the orders impugned and after going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Revisional Court whilst accepting the revision filed by the accused has not even referred to the statement of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Section 200/202 Criminal Procedure Code and has quashed the order taking cognizance. It was required of the Revision Court to have referred to all the material available on record before interfering with reasoned order taking cognizance passed by the trial Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the revision is allowed. The order passed by the Revisional Court dated 26.6.2010 is set aside and the matter is now remanded back to the Revisional Court for fresh consideration after taking into account all the material available on record. The Revisional Court shall decide the matter in accordance with law expeditiously. The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 20.11.2012. Record be sent back to the Revisional Court.Revision petition allowed. *******