ARADHANA VIKRAM SINGH Vs. SANTOSH T.V.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ms. Aradhana Vikram Singh, the petitioner herein vide this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is seeking following prayer:

(2.) Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respondent No.1 filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner came in touch with the complainant through one Rajeev Ozha. The petitioner, after taking respondent No.1 into confidence, requested him to make payment of Rs.6,20,000/- on her behalf to M/s. S.H. Group, Naya Bazar, New Delhi as she was undergoing some financial difficulties. She represented to the complainant that she was a resourceful lady. Believing the representation and assurance given by the petitioner that she would repay the amount to respondent No.1 within a week, respondent No.1 made payment of Rs.6,20,000/- vide pay order No.810443 dated 21.12.93 to S.H. Group, Naya Bazar on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner executed a promissory note in favour of respondent No.1 on 22.12.93 and in addition to the promissory note, she also issued a cheque for Rs.6,20,000/- in favour of respondent No.1 on 30.12.93 drawn on Central Bank of India, Panchsheel Park, Delhi and she represented to the complainant that the cheque would get encashed within a week. The cheque, however, on presentation was dishonoured and returned with the remarks Insufficient Funds. The respondent No.1 immediately contacted the petitioner and protested. The petitioner felt sorry for the inconvenience and asked him to resubmit the cheque. Cheque was resubmitted with the bank on 19.01.94 but it was returned with the remark the account holder has stopped payment. On the aforesaid allegations, respondent No.1 claimed that the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating punishable under Section 417 and 420 IPC.

(3.) Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after conducting preliminary inquiry, summoned the petitioner to face trial under Section 420 IPC. After the recording of pre-charge evidence, the trial court heard the parties and directed the charges under Section 417/420 IPC to be framed against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order of learned M.M. dated 08.12.2005, petitioner filed a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 07.11.2008.