JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. However, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. is present. In spite of service of notice upon opposite party no. 2, he has not put in his appearance. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 15.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in Sidgora P. S. Case No. 171 of 1996 corresponding to G. R. No. 1613 of 1996 by which the opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Section 406 & 420 of I.P.C. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that the opposite party no. 2 had induced the informant to provide bank loan and has offered his vehicle as a bank guarantee. It has been alleged that the opposite party no. 2 has taken Rs. 85,000/- in the name of his firm fraudulently. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sidgora P. S. Case No. 171 of 1996 was instituted in which after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted leading to taking of cognizance and thereafter charge was framed against the opposite party no. 2 under Sections 420 & 406 of I.P.C. to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In course of trial, 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. P.W. 1 - Smt. D. Kamala has stated that in the year 1983, the petitioner was working as a Munshi to opposite party no. 2. She has stated that she had given a loan of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner who gave it to the opposite party no. 2. One firm was opened in the name and style of Laxmi Enterprises and the opposite party no. 2 had taken a bank loan of Rs. 80,000/- which was sanctioned in the name of the petitioner. She has further stated that the opposite party no. 2 has taken 4-5 blank cheques and had withdrawn money from the bank. She however, does not have any documentary evidence in proof of her claim. P.W. 2 - Jaynath Singh has stated that in 1996, the petitioner had approached him for loan which was required by opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 28,000/- was given to the petitioner which was not returned by opposite party no. 2. He has stated that he does not have any written document in proof of such transaction. P.W. 2 - Jaynath Singh has stated that in 1996, the petitioner had approached him for loan which was required by opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 28,000/- was given to the petitioner which was not returned by opposite party no. 2. He has stated that he does not have any written document in proof of such transaction. He has also stated that the police has not recorded his statement during investigation. P.W. 3 - G. Venugopal is the petitioner as well as the informant who has supported the prosecution case. In crossexamination, this witness has stated that since the loan was not returned the bank had filed a certificate case against him. He has admitted that he has not filed any civil case for realisation of the amount from opposite party no. 2. This witness has stated that he does not have any documentary evidence in support of his claim. P.W. 4 - G. Laxmi is the wife of the petitioner who has deposed that the petitioner had taken a loan of Rs. 80,000/- from the Cooperative Bank on the inducement of the opposite party no. 2. She has further stated that after taking signature over the cheque, the amount was withdrawn by the opposite party no. 2. She has admitted that the police has not recorded her statement during investigation. P.W. 5 - Swayan Singh has deposed that he has given Rs. 5,000/- to the informant, but it was not returned back. He has also stated that his vehicle was plied by the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2800/- is still outstanding against opposite party no. 2. This witness has stated that he has never given any loan to the opposite party no. 2. P.W. 6 - Gurunam Singh has stated that he has visited Cooperative Bank, Bistupur with the petitioner when the opposite party no. 2 had taken signature of the petitioner on the cheque. He has further stated that Rs. 80,000/- was sanctioned to the informant. He has also deposed that no employee of the bank was present when the signature on the cheque was taken. P.W. 7 - Madan Mohan Singh has stated that he has taken the signature of the opposite party no. 2 and had sent it for examination before the State Forensic Laboratory, Patna and after getting the report he has filed charge-sheet. P.W. 7 - Madan Mohan Singh has stated that he has taken the signature of the opposite party no. 2 and had sent it for examination before the State Forensic Laboratory, Patna and after getting the report he has filed charge-sheet. P.W. 8 - Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal has deposed that he has given Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner which was not returned back. He has also stated that the police has not recorded his statement. P.W. 9 - Sikander Singh has deposed that he has gone to the bank where the petitioner had sent some blank cheques. This witness was unable to state the amount of the cheque. P.W. 10 - K. N. Mishra has proved a letter given to the petitioner which has been marked as Exhibit 4. 5. From a perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is an admitted fact that there is no documentary evidence to suggest that the opposite party no. 2 had taken the amount of Rs. 85,000/- which was sanctioned as a loan in favour of the petitioner. Even the signature on the cheque could not be conclusively proved as that of the opposite party no. 2 which has further diluted the prosecution case. The evidence available on record therefore, does not make out a case of entrustment and cheating so as to prosecute the opposite party no. 2 for the offences under Sections 406 & 420 of I.P.C. The petitioner if at all aggrieved with respect to the subject matter of the criminal proceedings could have chosen a civil forum for redressal of his grievance, but he has not done so and in fact it appears that perhaps as a safeguard against the certificate proceeding initiated by the bank for recovery of the loan amount from the petitioner, the FIR was instituted. Apart from what has been stated above, there has been discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses with respect to the exact amount of the loan which was taken by the opposite party no. 2 and in absence of any documentary proof in support of the contention advanced by the petitioner before the learned courts below, the opposite party no. 2 was rightly acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Sections 406 & 420 of I.P.C. 6. 2 and in absence of any documentary proof in support of the contention advanced by the petitioner before the learned courts below, the opposite party no. 2 was rightly acquitted from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Sections 406 & 420 of I.P.C. 6. In view of the aforesaid finding, therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Jamshedpur in Sidgora P. S. Case No. 171 of 1996 and accordingly this application stands dismissed.