RAJ KUMAR Vs. PREM TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order dated 04.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, (Annexure P-2), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner-complainant impugning the order dated 17.07.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, (Annexure P-1), dismissing his complaint, was dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- complainant had filed a complaint before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506, IPC with the brief allegations that the petitioner-complainant had a saving bank account bearing No.48 in The Yamuna Nagar Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Nagal, District Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner-complainant had never received a cheque book from the above-said bank. On 31.01.2003, the balance in his account was Rs. 30,52,123.20p. On 07.02.2003, respondent No.1-accused Prem Tyagi in connivance with respondent No.2, the Managing Director, withdrew Rs. 30,00,000.00 from his (petitioner) account without any authority. The petitioner- complainant had never issued cheque or withdrawal form for withdrawal of the said amount from his saving account. When the petitioner-complainant came to know about the withdrawal of the amount from his account, he protested the matter before Prem Tyagi, the Manager of the bank. The petitioner-complainant received his pass-book with a great difficulty showing the statement of account. The respondent-accused threatened the petitioner-complainant in case he continued to raise the issue.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the complaint, the learned Area Judicial Magistrate called for the report from the police by invoking the provisions of Section 202, Cr.P.C. After scanning the material, the learned Area Judicial Magistrate found that no prima-facie case for summoning of the accused was made out, therefore, he dismissed the complaint. Criminal Misc. No.M-25723 of 2009(O&M) ..3.. Dissatisfied with the above-said order, the petitioner- complainant filed a criminal revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, but the same was also dismissed and hence, the judgments of both the courts below are under challenge before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the material available on record.