JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.5.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in revision, whereby, the order, dated 11.4.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (East), Bhilwara in connection with F.I.R. Case No. 51/2006, registered at the Police Station Hamirgarh, Distt. Bhilwara, whereby, the learned Magistrate look cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. and directed that the petitioner be summoned through warrant of arrest has been affirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principal accused in this case were Saroj Sharma and Kishan Lai. Learned counsel submits that the police after investigation did not file charge sheet against the petitioner. He submits that the complainant in the F.I.R. and in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not allege that the petitioner induced him fraudulently or cheated him out of the amount deposited by the complainant in the post office. Learned counsel submits that the order taking cognizance against the petitioner is without jurisdiction and has been passed without there being any material available on the record against the petitioner. Learned counsel thus prays that the order taking cognizance qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and the documents available on the record. 5. Upon a perusal of the material available on the record, it becomes apparent that the complainant and other investors who were examined during investigation have not made any direct allegation against the petitioner for having fraudulently induced them or having misappropriated their money. The learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner on the basis of the inference that the petitioner might have conspired with the principal accused Sharoj Sharma and Kishan Lal. The order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 405, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. having been passed on conjectures cannot be held to be justified. 6. Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 405, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. having been passed on conjectures cannot be held to be justified. 6. Resultantly, the misc. petition is allowed. The order dated 19.5.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara affirming the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (East), Bhilwara, whereby, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B I.P.C. are hereby quashed to the petitioner's extent. 7. However, the prosecution is given liberty that if during the course of the trial, some incriminating material is brought on record against the petitioner, then, it shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application for summoning the petitioner as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In the event of such an application being filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the learned trial Court without being prejudiced of the fact that the order taking cognizance has been quashed by this Court.Stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******