IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL REVISION No. 206 of 2011 In Stay Application No.977 of 2011 Urgency Application No. 4259 of 2011 Jagmohan Singh Rawat R/o 5/27 IIIrd Tilak Complex Tilak Road, Dehradun .....................Revisionist Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home, Secretariat Dehradun 2. B.S. Bisht S/o Unknown R/o village and P.O Bhauwala Dehradun ………....….......Respondents Shri Nagesh Aggarwal, Advocate, present for the revisionist. Smt. Mamta Bisht, A.G.A., present for the state. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard. (2) This revision is directed against order dated 20.05.2011, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2 Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 1847 of 2004 State vs. Jagmohan Singh Rawat, relating to offences punishable under section 406, 420 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Sadar, Dehradun, by which the trial court directed to frame the charge against the revisionist Jagmohan Singh Rawat. (3) Brief facts of the case are that, as per the allegations made against the revisionist, in the year 1994, he got deposited ` 10,000/- from the complainant with a promise to repay ` 51,000/- on the maturity after a period of ten years. However, the complainant was repaid nothing. He has alleged that he has been cheated and criminal misappropriation has been done of ` 10,000/- by the accused (revisionist). (4) It is not a case of the revisionist that the complainant did not deposit ` 10,000/- in Jawan Firms and Leasing Company Ltd. of which the present revisionist was the Managing Director in the year 1994. Learned counsel for the revisionist pleaded that the revisionist should have filed Criminal Complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and that the offences relating to offences punishable under section 406 and 420 of I.P.C., are not made out. 3 (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the revisionist, and learned counsel for the state, and after going through the papers on record, this court does not find any illegality in the framing of the charge by the trial court. (6) Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, the revision is dismissed with the observation that revisionist is at liberty to raise all the factual pleas of defence before the trial court. (Stay Application No. 977 of 2011 and Urgency Application No. 4259 of 2011 also stand disposed of). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt.24.11.2011 N.P