JUDGMENT : (Partha Sarthy, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant application praying for setting aside the order dated 18.5.2023 passed in Complaint Case no.200(c) of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Aurangabad whereby the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the discharge petition filed under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner. 3. The prosecution case based on the complaint dated 15.3.2011 filed by the complainant-opposite party no.2 alleges inter alia that the complainant was on a look out for a job for his unemployed son. Having come in contact with the petitioner, on the advice of the petitioner that he could get a City Ride bus on loan, the complainant deposited the required amount of Rs. 50,000/- through the petitioner in the Punjab National Bank. He was assured by the petitioner that he would get the vehicle as soon as the amount reaches accused no.2. Inspite of the assurance by the petitioner, the complainant states that he did not receive his vehicle. Further on the complainant going and meeting the accused persons including the petitioner herein, it is stated that he was told that his demand draft had been misplaced. On the complainant pursuing his matter, on the next date the accused persons including the petitioner became very angry and got him pushed out of the office with the help of a chaprasi. The complainant states that the accused persons have cheated him of a sum of Rs.50,000/ and he has sustained loss of Rs.9,54,200/. As such the complaint. 4. After recording of the statement of the complainant as also that of the witnesses Ashok Kumar Singh, Pramod Singh and Nagendra Singh on S.A, the learned trial Court by its order dated 10.5.2012 was pleased to take cognizance for the offence under section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Subsequently the statement of the witnesses before charge was recorded. They were CW I Pramod Singh, CW 2 Bhuneshwar Singh (complainant), CW 3 Umesh Prajapati and CW 4 Ajay Kumar Singh (son of complainant). 6. A petition under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner in Complaint Case no.200 of 2011 praying therein that he be discharged from the case. They were CW I Pramod Singh, CW 2 Bhuneshwar Singh (complainant), CW 3 Umesh Prajapati and CW 4 Ajay Kumar Singh (son of complainant). 6. A petition under section 245 of the Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner in Complaint Case no.200 of 2011 praying therein that he be discharged from the case. A rejoinder to the same was filed on behalf of the complainant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, by order dated 18.5.2023, the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner, was rejected. It is against this order dated 18.5.2023 that the instant application has been preferred. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Even as per the allegations in the complaint, the deposition of witness in course of enquiry as also their evidence before charge, no offence whatsoever is made out against this petitioner. There was no instrument of any property by the complainant in favour of the petitioner who only happens to be a facilitating agent for the complainant to obtain a vehicle by way of loan. No case is made out against the petitioner and thus it is prayed that the order impugned be quashed and the application be allowed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the opposite parties. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record this Court finds that the allegations as levelled by the complainant in the complaint petition is to the effect that having met the petitioner and on his advice, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- through him with the bank. However as promised by the petitioner, he did not receive the vehicle inspite of the amount having reached the other accused. It further transpires that even the accused no.2 on being contacted by the complainant asked him to get in touch with the petitioner. On subsequent date on the complainant contacting the petitioner and accused no.2, the amount was still not returned and instead he was pushed out of the office by the staff. 10. So far as the contents of the statement of the witnesses recorded in their evidence before charge is concerned, the same has been brought as Annexure-4 series to the petition. 10. So far as the contents of the statement of the witnesses recorded in their evidence before charge is concerned, the same has been brought as Annexure-4 series to the petition. On perusal of the same it would transpire that CW 1 Pramod Singh who appears to be an independent witness has stated that the complainant who had to take a vehicle got in touch with the petitioner and gave a demand draft of Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner. He saw the complainant hand over the draft to the petitioner. CW 2 Bhubneshwar Singh happens to be complainant of the case. He in his statement has categorically stated that he handed over the draft of Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner who happens to be the agent of Ramanand Automobiles, Gaya. CW 3 Umesh Prajapati who also appears to been an independent witness has stated that he saw the complainant handing over the draft of Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner. CW 4 Ajay Kumar Singh who happens to be the son of the complainant has stated that his father gave the draft of Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner as he had to take a City Ride bus. The petitioner happens to be an agent. 11. Having perused the material on record and specially the contents of the statement of the witnesses recorded before charge as has been dealt with hereinabove, the Court finds that the learned Court below by its order dated 18.5.2023 impugned herein rightly rejected the prayer for discharge made by the petitioner in their application filed under section 245 Cr.P.C. Neither the petitioner has been able to point out any illegality in the order impugned nor the Court finds any merit in the instant application. 12. The application is dismissed.