JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.6.2006 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge(Fast Track) No.3, Jodhpur whereby the cognizance has been taken against respondent no.2 has been set aside by the revisional court for the offences under Sections 420, 427, 177 and 199 IPC. 2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner complainant lodged a report stating therein that respondent no.2 is the employee of the bank. He moved an application for staff loan on the false information that he has not taken any kind of loan from any bank. On this false information, loan was sanctioned to the respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication from the LIC Housing Finance Limited that the respondent is a loanee for the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 1,13,297/- is overdue till 1.11.2005. Thus respondent no.2 has given a false information causing wrongful gain to him and the explanation has also been sought from the respondent no.2 and he had not denied the fact that he was loanee with the LIC Housing Finance Limited. On this, FIR was investigated and the Final Report was submitted by the police on the ground that only offences under Sections 177 and 199 IPC are made out which are non-cognizable. On protest, the court below has taken cognizance against the respondent for the offences under Sections 420, 427, 177 and 199 IPC. A revision was preferred by the respondent which was accepted. Hence this revision petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioner is that the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction as the revisional court has minutely appreciated the evidence and the revisional court was guided by the fact that the amount of such loan has already been repaid, hence no offence is made out. 4. Per contra, the contention of respondent no. 2 is that he had not furnished any wrong information. The present petitioner complainant has undertaken that he had not taken any loan from any bank and, admittedly, he was not a loanee from any bank. 4. Per contra, the contention of respondent no. 2 is that he had not furnished any wrong information. The present petitioner complainant has undertaken that he had not taken any loan from any bank and, admittedly, he was not a loanee from any bank. The impugned loan which has been taken into consideration was from a financial institution and after this incident, the application form for the staff loan has been amended and the words "financial institution" has also been added and he has not committed any offence and further more, his contention is that it is not a case of cheating. It is only a case of not disclosing the facts. No false information has been given by him. Further more, his contention is that all the loan amounts of housing loan and of staff loan have already been repaid and there is no infirmity in the order of the revisional court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders as well as the record of the case. 6. Staff loan application form has been placed before this Court which reveals that undertaking of the effect that the respondent has not taken any loan from bank has been furnished and, admittedly, the respondent was loanee of LIC Housing Finance Limited. He was not loanee of any bank, hence no case of cheating or furnishing false information, prima facie, is made out against the present respondent. Further more, the fact has been considered by the revisional court that amount of loan has already been paid.4 7. Looking at the above, there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. *******