TEK CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 06.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the revisional court') in Criminal Revision Petition No. 48/2012, whereby the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 25.11.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Criminal Original Case No. 483/2005 of taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC has been affirmed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed an FIR on 04.06.2002 while alleging that the petitioner and other three persons are the partners of a firm titled as 'Keshvanand Tek Chand' situated in Mandi Kesarisinghpur and working as Grain Merchant and Commission Agent. It is alleged that the complainant had deposited Rs. 1,25,345/ - in the said firm on 01.04.2001, however, when he demanded the said money, petitioner and the other accused persons have refused to return the same and, therefore, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC.

(3.) THE trial court after considering the negative final report filed by the police has issued notice to the complainant, who appeared before it and filed a protest petition while claiming that the police has wrongly reported the factum of compromise between the accused persons and him. He also claimed that the accused persons have misappropriated the amount deposited by him. In support of the protest petition, the complainant has got recorded his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as the statements of other three witnesses viz. Sarjeet Singh, Inder Singh and Subhash Mathur. The complainant and the above named witnesses have stated that the amount of Rs. 1,25,345/ - was deposited by the complainant in the firm of the accused persons and when the complainant has demanded to return the said money they have refused to do so. The trial court after taking into consideration the protest petition and the statements recorded in support of the same, has ordered for taking cognizance against the petitioner and other co -accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 406 IPC vide order dated 25.11.2005.