IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.392 of 2007 Date of Decision: February 24, 2010 J.C. Khanna .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Haryana & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. None for the remaining respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition is directed against Order dated 11.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon whereby the cancellation report has been accepted. FIR No.135 dated 6.5.2000 under Sections 420, 406, 323, 506 IPC, Police Station, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, while invoking provisions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., came to be lodged at the instance of petitioner (complainant). The Crl. Revision No.392 of 2007 [2] police, after investigation, submitted a cancellation report. Aggrieved against the cancellation report, a protest petition/ complaint was filed against nine accused. The issue has been considered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon and it has been dismissed while holding that the issue was of civil nature and no criminal act is spelt out from the incident. I have considered the issue. As per the complainant’s case, an order was placed for purchase of chemicals and solvents from the accused for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/-. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on 15.6.1999 to Ashok Khanna (respondent No.4). The said sum/ money is stated to have been counted by Madan, Mohan and Rajiv Arora. Ashok Khanna however signed a demand promissory note by way of security confirmation and acknowledgment of the liability and repayment guarantee. Because material was not supplied to the complainant, it has been alleged that criminal offence is spelt out. I am in agreement with the reasons recorded by the Magistrate to the effect that it is a dispute of civil nature. The very fact that demand promissory note has been executed, Crl. Revision No.392 of 2007 [3] indicates that case is of civil nature. Merely because material was not supplied, per se, would not indicate commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, in the facts and circumstances of this case. No ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) February 24, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?