1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.PETITION NO.1265/2009 Dinesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State Date of order : 25/10/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. P.C. Jain for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Kumar, P.P. for the State. ****** This misc. petition has been filed by complainant u/s.482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11.6.2008 by which the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2 has rejected his protest petition. A complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the accused-respondent for offence u/s.406, 420 and 484 of IPC. It was alleged therein that the firm of the accused M/s. Atul Automobiles engaged in the trading of three wheelers auto vehicles have released a sum of Rs.1 lac on the wrong pretext thereby defrauding the petitioner with a view to illegal gain of the money and made fraudulent entries in their account books. When the petitioner went to their Jaipur office, he was beaten and was made to sign two stamps of Rs.10/- each along with other documents and two blank cheques. Dr.P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that 20 days before the date of filing of the final report, same investigating agency had submitted written report to the learned Court of Sessions 2 opposing anticipatory bail application of the accused-respondent and asserting that the offences were fully made out against them. There was no justification for change of opinion on the same material. It was denied that it was an offence of civil nature and breach of a contract, stamp papers and cheques could not be used against the complainant because he was forced to sign them blank. Learned counsel submitted that there are independent witnesses also to prove the case against the accused- petitioner. He in this connection refer to his own statement u/s.200 Cr.P.C. and that of the independent witness Mukesh Choudhary. Learned PP opposed the misc. petition. I have carefully gone through the impugned order as also two cited statements. It is not in dispute that petitioner was having business transactions with the Atul Mobiles and their accounts books were also examined by the investigating agency. It was found that certain debit entries were made in the name of the petitioner. In the business transactions some papers or even some cheques may be blank, which were seized by the police, but that cannot made offence against the respondent. The Investigating Agency as also the learned trial court has found the case of civil nature. The statement of witnesses by themselves could not disprove the written contract between the parties. In my view, the impugned order 3 rejecting the protest petition does not suffer from any error so as to warrant interference by this Court. The misc. petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/-