1 Jagdev Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Revision No.380/06) Date of order:- 22nd February, 2007. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SARRAF Mr.N.L.Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1. Mr. M.K. Garg, for respondent no. 2. BY THE COURT:- This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 24.4.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, district Sri Ganganagar whereby a revision petition filed by the respondent no. 2 was allowed and the order dated 23.3.2005 of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anoopgarh taking cognizance against the respondent no.2 of the offences u/ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC was set aside. The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a complaint u/ss. 379, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anoopgarh alleging that he had an account in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Anoopgarh. He lost his pass book and cheque book in January, 2002 which contained some blank cheques signed by him. He informed the bank on 17.1.2002 and then on 4.2.2003 that his cheque book and pass book were missing. On his request the bank stopped payment of cheques. Thereafter, in the month of 2 January, 2004 the petitioner received a notice from the counsel of the respondent no.2 that cheque no. 244216 has been dishohoured and, therefore, he should make the payment. The petitioner sent reply of the notice through his counsel on 19.6.2004 and asked the respondent no.2 to return the missing cheques. According to the complaint, the respondent no.2 filled in the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- in the missing cheque and tried to get it encashed. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anoopgarh sent the complaint to S.H.O. Police Station, Anoopgarh for investigation u/s. 156(3) Cr.P.C. . S.H.O. Police Station, Anoopgarh after investigation found the complaint to be false and therefore submitted final report in the matter. The petitioner filed a protest petition. After recording the statements of witnesses, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anoopgarh by order dated 23.3.2005 took cognizance against the respondent no.2 of the offences u/ss. 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The respondent no. 2 filed a revision petition against the said order. Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh by order dated 24.4.2006 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of cognizance passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anoopgarh. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent no.2. Signatures of the petitioner on the cheque in 3 question are not disputed. It is also not disputed that the respondent no.2 gave notice to the petitioner regarding dishonour of the cheque on 31.5.2004 and filed a complaint against the petitioner on 1.7.2004 and thereafter the Court took cognizance against the petitioner of the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 12.7.2004 whereas the petitioner has filed this complaint on 17.7.2004. The chain of events will show that after receiving the notice regarding dishonour of the cheque the petitioner filed this complaint after a delay of more than one and half months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has filed the complaint against the respondent no.2 only with a view to pre- empt the proceedings pending against him u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I refer to 1999 SCC(Criminal) 1466 and 2004(3) R.Cr.D. 250(Raj.) in this regard. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this revision petition. The revision petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly. (G.S.SARRAF),J. 4