ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 18.7.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Churu, whereby the learned Judge has quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 16.3.1989 passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sardarsahar, Churu. Vide order dated 16.3.1989, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468 read with Sec. 120-B I.P.C. against the accused-respondents.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 21.2.1986, the petitioner had submitted a criminal complaint wherein he had claimed that he was, employed with Rajasthan Premkrishna Transport Company as an agent. While he was working at the company, Deepchand, respondent No. 2, used to visit his office. During these visits, he told the petitioner that there is no point in working in a small company. He also used to promise the petitioner that he would make him an agent of big company. He also got the complainant to sign forms at two different places. Believing the promise, the petitioner signed the forms. Till May 1980, the petitioner continued working at Sardarsahar. Subsequently, he shifted to Delhi, where he worked at Duwaras Transport Company Ltd., Azad Market, Delhi. Having worked thereabout one and a half years, he went to work for different transport companies.

(3.) Meanwhile, both Deepchand and Rajkumar, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had big business in South India. Taking the benefit of the signed papers, they created a big company, Bhagwati Agency, wherein they claimed that the petitioner was the owner of the said agency. In their bogus claim, they projected respondent No. 2, Rajkumar, as the manager. He further contended that both these persons pretended that they were the elder brother of his. Creating a false impression, they got the agency registered with the branch at Sardarsahar. He further claimed that he had never stayed at Jaipur at Haldion Ka Rasta. Therefore, the entire fraud was made by the respondents-accused. However, when he received a notice from the Commercial Taxes Department that his name had been used by the petitioner, he discovered. the fraud. The complaint was sent for investigation under Sec. 156(3) Crimial P.C., However, after investigating the case, the police submitted a negative FR. A notice was issued to the complainant-petitioner. After hearing the complainant-petitioner and after going through the negative FR, vide order dated 16.3.1989, the learned trial Court took cognizance, as aforementioned. Since the respondent-accused were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. The learned Judge, vide order dated 18.1.2008, quashed and set aside the order dated 16.3.1989. Hence, this petition before this Court.