VIKASH BAWEJA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 28.1.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge(JD) Anupgarh whereby the charge has been framed against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420, IPC.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the complainant Nanu Ram has filed a complaint stating therein that he purchased an Engine and Pump-set from the accused which was delivered to him in sealed box and installed at the tube-well. The accused stated that the Engine is of Kriloskar. When the bank officials came for the physical inspection of the site, then only the complainant came to know that the accused has not delivered Kriloskar Engine but he has delivered the Natioinal Diesel Engine which is much cheaper than the Kriloskar Engine. On this, a complaint has been lodged against the present petitioner. After enquiry, cognizance has been taken against the present petitioner under Section 420 IPC. After the pre-charge evidence, the charge has been framed against the present petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of the present petitioner is that order is not speaking one. The engine has been installed at the tube- well of the present petitioner. It is only a business and civil deal and no offence under Section 420 IPC is constituted. Further more, the contention of the present petitioner is that compromise has already been arrived at between the parties, in spite of this fact, the charge has been wrongly framed against the present petitioner.