NACHHATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 despite being served personally.

(2.) BY means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, CrPC), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the summoning order dated 22.5.2004 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge 1st (Jr. Div.)/J.M., Dehradun in Complaint Case No. 1331 of 2004 (Old No. 14/2004), Manish Kumar v. Ravindra Pal Singh and Ors. under Section 420 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner in the complainant or in the statement which may constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC. I find force in the argument of learned Counsel inasmuch as the complainant himself has nowhere alleged that he ever met the petitioner or personally gave any money to him. No conversation whatsoever had taken place between the petitioner and the complainant. It was Ravindra Pal Singh and Davindra Pal Singh who had assured him to give employment in foreign country and the complainant gave all the money either to Ravindra Pal Singh or Davindra Pal Singh. It was Ravindra Pal Singh who had given him the cheque of rupees one lakh and had assured for full refund of money in case of failure to provide the promised job to the complainant. Petitioner never assured him for any job. The complainant had only expressed his doubt that the person who had come along with Ravindra Pal Singh at the airport at Delhi in the night of 3/4.9.2003, might be Nachhatar Singh and this fact further goes to reveal that the complainant had never actually met the petitioner. There is no evidence against the petitioner to prove the offence of cheating against him. A 'cheat' has been defined under Section 415 IPC which is reproduced as under: