JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor and complainant perused the record. 2. The instant Misc. Petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.2,2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh in Criminal Revision No. 72/2007 whereby he affirmed the order dated 25.3.2004 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar rejecting the final report filed by the police and taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant's case is that he has kept some bags of Gwar weighing 51 Qt. 45 Kg in all as in trust with the petitioner. He further alleged that petitioner sold the said bags and received the sale amount of Rs. 58,602/- but did not make the payment thereof to the complainant. Learned counsel submits that ex-facie the said allegation of the complaint was found to be false in investigation because the investigating agency collected the receipts of the sale money executed and signed by the complainant. He further submits that the said receipts are not disputed by the complainant. Learned counsel thus submits that the order taking cognizance as affirmed in revision is absolutely illegal and amounts to an abuse of process of the Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Upon consideration of the material available on record, particularly the grounds submitted by the police along with final report, it is manifest that the police seized the receipts of the sale amount executed by the complainant in this case. The receipt of the sale money has also been acknowledge by the complainant in account books of the accused petitioner which are also available on record. When the complainant was examined under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, he did not dispute or deny the receipts which are available on record. 6. In view of the aforesaid situation, this Court feels that the Courts below has committed grave error in taking cognizance for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Addl. 6. In view of the aforesaid situation, this Court feels that the Courts below has committed grave error in taking cognizance for the offence under Section 406 Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Misc. Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The order dated 26.2.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fact Track) No. 2, Hanumangarh passed in Criminal Revision No. 72/2007 is quashed and set aside and all the subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed.Stay petition is disposed of. Record of the trial Court is directed to be returned back.Petition allowed. *******