KAMLESH SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition under section 482 Cr. P.C, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 13.3.2002 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu taking cognizance against him for offence under sections 406, 420 and 120 IPC.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that one Shiv Prasad, a gold smith by profession filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu. It is averred that accused Om Prakash who carries on the business of agent for arranging employment, approached to him and offered a job in Behrein. He was conscious of the fact that as he was old, it was not possible to get a job in foreign country. The accused Om Prakash assured the he will arrange a job of sitting in a showroom in the foreign country. Relying on the assurance given by the accused, the complainant handed over his passport to him in June, 2000. Om Prakash and Kamlesh Soni (petitioner) visited the complainant house and informed that the visa has been prepared. They demanded Rs. 10,000/- for completing the necessary formalities like medical test etc. He paid Rs. 10,000/- to Om Prakash. He was medically examined in Bombay on 1.7.2000. After five or seven days, he was informed by Om Prakash that he has been found fit by the Medical Board. He was asked to arrange Rs. 50,000/-. He paid the said amount to Om Prakash. Thereafter, he was dispatched to Bahrein. He was sent to Bahrein on a passport visa. In Bahrein, he worked for some time in a company. On account of his advanced age, he fell ill and returned to India. According to the complainant, he was being cheated by Om Prakash and Kamlesh, inasmuch as, knowing well that he was not fit for employment in foreign country, they collect a huge amount of Rs. 50,000/- from him and dispatched him to Bahrein. He Could not stay their for more than a month and returned to India. The complaint was sent for investigation to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Police forwarded a Final Report. The complainant objected the Final Report by way of protest petition. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the accused persons Kamlesh and Om Prakash for offence under sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC.

(3.) Having heard Mr. Mahesh Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Even if, the averments made in the complaint goes unrebutted, the only role assigned to the petitioner Kamlesh Soni is that he once visited the house of complainant alongwith Om Prakash. There is no allegation that any assurance was given to the complainant by the petitioner Kamlesh. The amount was also paid to the Om Prakash and not to the petitioner Kamlesh. In view of this, even prima facie no case is made out against the petitioner Kamlesh. It would' be futile to continue the proceedings against the petitioner Kamlesh.