RAM PRASAD Vs. PREM @ PREMRAJ AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 15 -6 -2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 12 -92007, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Bamanwas in Criminal Case No. 135/2007, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he is a registered owner of a Tractor No. RJ -25/RA -0768, bearing Chasis No. 91914141370, and Engine No. 73781. According to him, the respondent No. 1 Prem @ Premraj forcibly took away the tractor and refused to return the said tractor to the petitioner. The petitioner lodged FIR, FIR No. 268/2006, with the Police Station Bamanwas for the offences under Sections 379 and 341 IPC. However, after a thorough investigation, the police submitted a negative final report before the Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner challenged the final report, by filing protest petition. Learned Magistrate recorded the statements of the petitioner under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and statements of his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, vide order dated 12 -9 -2007, learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 379 and 341 IPC. The accused respondent filed revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapur City. The Revisional Court vide order dated 15 -6 -2009, accepted the revision petition and quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 12 -9 -2007. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Raghunandan Lal Dixit, the learned Counsel for the accused respondent, has strenuously argued that a bare perusal of the facts narrated by the complainant himself clearly reveals that petitioner's brother had taken a loan from Prem, which he was unable to repay. Thus, the dispute is about recovery of money. However, in order to pressurize the accused respondent, from desisting from demanding repayment of loan, a false case has been fabricated against him. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has not given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report. Hence, the learned Judge was justified in setting aside the cognizance order.