RAJESH PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) As per prosecution story, the complainant had given a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the applicant for providing employment to him but he did not provide the employment and digested the said money dishonestly by committing fraud and forgery, and when the complainant demanded the said money, the applicant refused to return the same and threatened him with dire consequences.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the prosecution story is absolutely false and frivolous and highly unbelievable because it is highly unnatural and quite impossible that any body would pay such amount of money to any one and that too without obtaining any proof in respect thereof from the recipient. He further submits that neither the applicant prepared any forged job card or register. He further submits that no such money as alleged by the prosecution was ever received by the applicant in respect of providing employment, as alleged by the prosecution nor there is any evidence on record that the said money was ever given by the informant and the same was received by the applicant and as such, in the absence of any credible evidence in support of the allegations made by the informant, no reliance is liable to be placed upon the same. He further submits that neither the applicant has committed any cheating with the complainant nor did he ever cause any marpit to the applicant or threatened him with dire consequences. He further submits that no offence as alleged by the prosecution has been committed by the applicant and has been falsely implicated with a view to harass and put a pressure on him. He further submits that a bare perusal of the FIR reveals that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with malafide intention for the purpose of harassment. He further submits that there are no chance of his fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence and are in jail since 15.10.2011.