JUDGMENT 1. - The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 18.11.2010 passed by the Addl. Session Judge (F.T.) No. 2, Bikaner in revision whereby the Revisional Court upheld the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. No. 1 Bikaner in Cr. Original Case No. 44/2010 directing framing of charges against the petitioner for the offences under Section 420 and 406 I.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that exfacie the charges which have been framed against the petitioner are groundless. He submits that the complainant's admitted case is that he had given certain ornaments to the petitioner on 25.4.2008 on credit on the basis of an alleged assurance that the payment thereof would be made within three months. Learned counsel submits that the complainant's further allegation is that the payment was not made by the accused in three months and the ornaments were also not returned and thus the accused committed the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. Learned counsel submits that for the alleged oral transaction which took place on 25.4.2008, the complaint has been filed by the complainant on 7.12.2009 i.e. after nearly 16 months of the alleged incident. He contends that it is unbelievable that the complainant would part with jewelery worth Rs. 9 lacs without any written contract/receipts. Learned counsel submits that from the mere fact that the complaint has been filed after 16 months of the occurrence it is apparent that the story of the prosecution is concocted. He further submits that even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted to be true at the highest, then too it is a case of breach of contract and nothing beyond that. Thus, he prays that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner but she too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the transaction as alleged by the complainant is not supported by any documentary evidence. 4. After having given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned and the record it is apparent that the transaction between the parties as alleged by the complainant is not supported by any documentary evidence. 4. After having given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and after going through the orders impugned and the record it is apparent that the transaction between the parties as alleged by the complainant is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is also not in dispute that as per the complainant the petitioner was under an obligation to make payment towards the articles taken on credit within a period of three months from the date of the transaction which was 25.4.2008. Despite a lapse of more than year since the said period as available to the accused, the complainant chose to sleep over the matter and ultimately filed the complaint on 7.12.2009. I n the opinion of this Court firstly the proceedings are highly belated and exfacie cannot be said to be beyond the cloud of doubt. That apart even if the allegations are accepted on their face value, transaction between the parties was essentially in the nature of civil dispute and cannot be said to be amounting to offences of breach of trust and cheating. In this view of the matter, the order framing charge cannot be sustained. 5. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed and the order dated 4.8.2010 passed by the learned A.C.J.M. No. 1, Bikaner framing charge against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. is quashed. Record be sent back.Petition allowed. *******