1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Harjinder Singh. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1039/2006. ... Date of Order: January 22, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. N.L. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Public Prosecutor for the State. None present for the contesting non-petitioner No.2. BY THE COURT: By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter), the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24-6-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, district Sri Ganganagar (for short, “the Revisional Court” hereinafter), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6-1-2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Anoopgarh, district Sri Ganganagar (for short, “the trial Court” hereinafter) was dismissed. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. No one appears for the contesting non- petitioner No.2. It appears that the non-petitioner No.2 filed a report against the present petitioner alleging therein that he has been cheated by the present petitioner. The facts, as disclosed in the orders of the trial Court and the Revisional Court, are that the petitioner took some money from the non-petitioner No.2 for sending him to Malesiya. He was sent to Malesiya, however, after having reached Malesiya, he did not find the job and came back to India and, therefore, submits that he has been cheated by the petitioner by taking money. In the report filed by the non-petitioner No.2, it has been stated that the petitioner demanded security amount for sending him to Malesiya and thereafter VISA was obtained and the complainant was sent to Malesiya. On 19-6-2006, he reached Malesiya and thereafter it is alleged that after staying about seven days in Malesiya, he came back as the VISA was only for seven days. Any way, the allegation against the petitioner is for taking money for sending the non-petitioner No.2 to Malesiya and it is not the allegation that he was not sent to Malesiya. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no element of cheating. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below deserve to be set aside. 3 The criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Courts below are aside and the proceedings against the petitioner stand quashed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs