VIPAN KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by Vipan Kumar against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 28th July, 1983.

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition are as under. Vipan Kumar filed a complaint in the High Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, under sections 420, 406 and 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code alleging therein that Ved Parkash respondent had very cordial relations with his family and used to address the father of the petitioner complainant as his elder brother and had thus become very close to the family of the petitioner complainant; that of and on he had been borrowing money from his mother and had then being returning the same which gave more strength to the relations between the petitioner's family and the respondent; that in the month of April, 1982, the respondent made a false representation to the mother of the petitioner and took Rs. 25,000/ - on loan from her and though he had never any intention to return the money he issued a post dated cheque bearing No L/41 -175053 to be presented for payment on 15th May, 1982; that the mother of the petitioner complainant presented the cheque for payment but there was no money in the account of the respondent; that on 24th September, 1982, the mother of the petitioner complainant learned that the respondent had more than Rs. 25,000/ - in his account with the State Bank of India; that the mother of the petitioner complainant presented the cheque at the counter of the bank along with a pay -in -slip for being credited to her account and that the pay -in -slip was duly acknowledged by the bank but later on Ved Parkash respondent took the cheque from the manager of the bank and tore it into two pieces and the manager of bank then returned the cheque to the mother of the petitioner complainant with the remarks that the payment had been stopped by the drawer of the cheque. The trial Magistrate after recording the preliminary evidence summoned Ved Parkash respondent and C.R. Gupta Manager of the State Bank of India under sections 420, 406 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code vide his order dated 8th March, 1983. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate Ved Parkash respondent and C.R Gupta Manager went in revision before Additional Sessions Judge who vide his impugned order set aside the order of the Magistrate summoning the respondent and his co -accused C.R. Gupta. Vipan Kumar petitioner has come up in revision in this Court which come up for hearing before B.S. Yadav, J, who vide his order dated 18th May, 1984, issued notice of motion to the respondent and his co -accused. However on 27th July 1984, M.R. Sharma. J, withdrew the notice quaC.R. Gupta on issued notice to Ved Parkash respondent.

(3.) I have perused the orders of the trial Magistrate and the revisional Court. The learned Magistrate after perusing the preliminary evidence came to a finding that a prima facie case for summoning the respondent and his co -accused was made out. However, it appears from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he made a detailed appreciation of evidence produced by the petitioner complainant as if he was disposing of the case at the final stage. In his impugned order he has pointed out minor discrepancies here and there in the preliminary evidence produced by the petitioner. I do not think that was a stage for critical appreciation of the preliminary evidence produced by the petitioner. I find no irregularity or illegality in the order of the learned trial Magistrate. Consequently, I allow this revision petition and restore the order of the learned trial Magistrate as far as the summoning of Ved Parkash respondent under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code alone is concerned. The parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 25th February, 1985. Petition allowed.