JUDGMENT : NAVNEET KUMAR, J. 1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of OP No. 2. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this criminal revision is directed against the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No. 626 of 2020, arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 1099 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra has rejected the petition dated 12.03.2020 filed by the petitioner for discharge in a most mechanical and casual manner, without appreciating the facts, contention and law raised on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Further it has been pointed out that the gist of the allegations as set out in the FIR is that the informant Raju Prajapati along with co-accused persons namely Devender Singh Dev and Krishna Mahto have made a plan to purchase one Hywa vehicle in presence of this petitioner along with other co-accused persons by the contribution of three partners namely the informant, co-accused Devendra Singh Dev and Krishna Mahto under which a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) was to be deposited by the said three members of the partner namely informant, Devender Singh Dev and Krishna Mahto and thus the informant Raju Prajapati deposited Rs. 10,00,00/- in the account of Devendra Singh Dev. It was assured by the accused persons that the new vehicle Hywa will be delivered within 15 days and the said agreement of partnership for the purchase of Hywa vehicle was made on 01/01/2018. It has further been alleged that after expiry of even after one month, new Hywa was not given and therefore the informant contacted the co-accused Devendra Singh Dev and another accused persons and thereupon they all were avoiding the matter and then accordingly he realized that he was cheated and then the FIR was instituted. 4. It has further been alleged that after expiry of even after one month, new Hywa was not given and therefore the informant contacted the co-accused Devendra Singh Dev and another accused persons and thereupon they all were avoiding the matter and then accordingly he realized that he was cheated and then the FIR was instituted. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has no role to play in the commission of the offense as evident from the FIR itself and the informant simply stated that he had come along with the co-accused persons, but neither this petitioner had assured to deposit any amount for the purchase of Hywa and nor he had received any amount. Further it has also been pointed out that there is no any agreement paper has ever been produced by the informant, under which this petitioner was one of the parties and therefore when it is admitted case of the sale and purchase of the Hywa vehicle and in absence of any specific role attributed by the informant against this petitioner and further in absence of any documentary proof to that effect, there is no offence of any cheating or criminal breach of trust is made out against this petitioner and learned trial court did not appreciate the evidences collected during the course of the investigation in the right perspective and without any proper application of judicial mind, rejected the prayer of the petitioner for his discharge and therefore it is submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and fit to be set-aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of OP No. 2 vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that this petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and he along with co-accused persons had visited to the house of the informant on 01/01/2018 and in a preplanned conspiracy, there was proposal for the purchase of Hywa vehicle and the co-accused persons had also fraudulently and dishonestly assured to make the payment to purchase the Hywa vehicle and further on the assurance given by the co-accused persons including this petitioner, the informant is said to have deposited Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) in the account of co-accused Devender Singh Dev, but neither the Hywa vehicle was purchased and nor the payment of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) was returned by the accused persons and therefore the case was instituted and the police after completing the investigation found the case true on the basis of the materials collected during the course of the investigation and submitted the charge-sheet. Further it has been pointed out on behalf of O.P. No. 2 that the learned trial court has rightly relied upon the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution during the course of the trial, where all of them have taken the name of this petitioner also that he had accompanied with a co-accused persons and therefore he does not deserve to be discharged in view of the glaring materials available against him and the learned trial court has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned order and accordingly, this criminal revision is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. 6. Having heard the parties, perused the record of this case. 7. It is admitted case of the prosecution that there was an agreement between three partners, namely the informant and two co-accused persons namely Devender Singh Dev and Krishna Mahto for purchase of the Hywa vehicle in partnership, under which, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (rupees ten lakhs) was alleged to have been deposited by the informant in the account of Devendra Singh Dev. It is further found that the allegation against this petitioner is that he had accompanied the said culprit Devendra Singh Dev and co-accused persons and no specific role has been attributed against this petitioner Sikandar Mahto. Even the connivance and conspiracy appears against the co-accused persons Devendra Singh Dev, Rambriksh Sao and Krishna Mahto, where Rambriksh Sao had assured to give a cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) and a cash of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) and the co-accused Krishna Mahto had assured to give Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), but there is no allegation against this petitioner Sikandar Mahto to give any amount, nor any kind of misappropriation of property or inducement to informant in order to deceive or cheat informant have been uttered against him by the informant. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) and the co-accused Krishna Mahto had assured to give Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand), but there is no allegation against this petitioner Sikandar Mahto to give any amount, nor any kind of misappropriation of property or inducement to informant in order to deceive or cheat informant have been uttered against him by the informant. Further it is also been found from the entire case diary that there is no agreement for the sale and purchase for purchasing the Hywa vehicle between the parties, where this petitioner is one of them. Further it is a case under sections 420 & 406 of the IPC, under which there is an allegation of criminal breach of trust and cheating and hence no any fact has come out, under which, there is an allegation against this petitioner for taking any action fraudulently and dishonestly to induce the informant to deliver the money or to misappropriate any property and further it is also admitted that not a single penny has been given to this petitioner nor any amount is credited in his account, rather the alleged money is said to have been given to the co-accused Devendra Singh Dev, who is not before this court. 8. Further it has also been pointed out that by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the informant of the present case (O.P. No. 2) is in the habit of instituting false case and a criminal case vide Simaria PS Case No. 42 of 2020 dated 24/3/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504, 506 & 34 of the IPC against the petitioner and co-accused persons, under which the police after investigation submitted the final form dated 23/5/2020 finding no evidence against this petitioner and absolved him from the charges levelled against him and the said FIR has been enclosed as annexure-3 and the final form as annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, which are available on record. Further it is found that there is no material at all against this petitioner for proceeding against him as evident from the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution including Anita Devi, Rita Devi, LalDev Prajapati, Pramod Singh, Md. Further it is found that there is no material at all against this petitioner for proceeding against him as evident from the witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution including Anita Devi, Rita Devi, LalDev Prajapati, Pramod Singh, Md. Mofin Ansari, Naresh Mahto, Manoj Chandra, Raghu Mahto, Chatru Mahto and from their statements as recorded under section 161 of the Cr.P.C. during the course of the investigation, it is simply found that the petitioner was present but there is no any kind of inducement or misappropriate of property fraudulently and dishonestly has been attributed against him. Neither he has given any single penny nor he has received any single penny nor any agreement to that effect for the sale and purchase of the Hywa vehicle has been executed between the parties and as such, in absence of any iota of material, no sufficient material has been found to proceed against this petitioner. The informant categorically discloses in the FIR itself that the alleged transaction for the purchase of Hywa vehicle was agreed upon under a partnership arrangement where there were three partners, namely, informant, Devender Singh Dev and Krishna Mahto and these three partners were supposed to deposit the said sum of rupees 10 lakhs by each of the three said partners and this is an admitted fact and as such there is no role of this petitioner at all. 9. In this background of this case, it is found that the learned court below did not apply its judicial mind and did not appreciate the evidences collected during the course of the investigation against the petitioner in the right perspective and therefore the impugned order is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, this criminal revision application is allowed and the petitioner above named Sikendra Mahto @ Sikandra Mahto @ Sikandra Kumar Verma @ Sikendra Kumar Verma is discharged from the offences alleged against him in connection Simariya P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 1099 of 2018 and the impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra in Misc. Criminal Application No. 626 of 2020, arising out of Simariya P.S. Case No. 93 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. No. 1099 of 2018 is set-aside with respect to this petitioner Sikendra Mahto @ Sikandra Mahto @ Sikandra Kumar Verma @ Sikendra Kumar Verma only.