SHIV SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2008, in Criminal Case No.366/2008, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. THE petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 21-6-2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayan in Cr. Revision Petition No.39/2008, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and has confirmed the order dated 11-8-2008.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had created a society and they collected Rs.1000/- from different persons. However, when these persons requested for return of the amount, the petitioners refused to disclose the account, and to refund the money. THErefore, the complainant filed a complaint in the court of learned Magistrate. Under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate, sent the complaint to the concerned police station Bayana for investigation. THE Police submitted a negative final report on the ground that the matter is of civil nature. THEreafter, the complainant filed a protest petition. THE learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant Roop Singh, and his other witnesses, under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Considering the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 11-8-2008, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. THE petitioners challenged the cognizance order by filing a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana. But the learned Revisional Court, considering the fact that the cognizance order is a reasoned one, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 21-6-2010. Hence, this Misc. petition.

(3.) IT is, indeed, settled principles of law that power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the order of cognizance is extremely limited one. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for the interference by this court.