RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. VISHAL DHINGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner Rajinder Kumar craves for quashing/setting aside of order dated 26.8.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak and order dated 10.5.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioner - Rajinder Kumar, respondent - Vishal Dhingra is his real brother. Both of them had formed a firm under the name and style of M/s Vishal Auto Industries. Such concern had raised a loan of Rs.3 lakhs from Punjab National Bank, where both the brothers had signed as partners. However, due to some family dispute, relations between the brothers got soured and thereafter the petitioner gave a legal notice dated 1.12.1998 stating therein that since he had lost faith in the respondent, therefore, the respondent was no longer authorized to deal with the affairs of the company. However, the respondent did not pay any heed to the notice and in order to cheat the petitioner opened a bank account No.1464 in Vijaya Bank, Rohtak under the name of M/s Vishal Auto Industries on 28.12.1998 showing it as a sole proprietorship concern belonging to the respondent, which was factually incorrect. The respondent had played a fraud with the petitioner and had committed criminal breach of trust by showing M/s Vishal Auto Industries as a sole proprietorship concern, as such the petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the respondent Vishal Dhingra. The said complaint No.376/3 dated 12.8.1999 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC had been filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak. After recording of the preliminary evidence, learned trial Court had summoned accused Vishal Dhingra to face trial for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC vide order dated 12.12.2000. Thereafter, the case kept being adjourned for pre-charge evidence of the complainant, which was recorded and thereafter the trial Court discharged the respondent- accused vide order dated 26.8.2011.

(3.) The petitioner had approached learned Sessions Judge, Rohtak by way of impugning the order of discharge. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 10.5.2013.