1 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.1041/06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1041/06 Subhas chandra Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Date of order : 21/04/2009 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. S.K.Pooniya for the petitioner. Mr. O.P.Singaria, P.P. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 08.05.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Churu (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 19.9.2005 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that infact the tractor sold to the complainant was new one and it was sold to the complainant on a reduced rate. The actual cost of the tractor was Rs. 3,70,000/- whereas it was sold at Rs. 2 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.1041/06 3,15,000/- for the reason that the said tractor was earlier sold to someone else and earlier purchaser failed to pay the amount and therefore, the tractor was resold to the complainant. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after investigation, the police filed negative final report. Learned public prosecutor supported the order impugned. It appears that the police submitted a negative final report ignoring the statements of various witnesses including statement of Madanlal and Lalchand etc. who stated that the petitioner committed the offence of cheating by giving old tractor and charging the cost of new one. The court below noticed that a receipt of the petitioner issued in favour of the complainant for Rs. 3,70,000/- is on record and despite it being on record and admitted signature of the petitioner having received Rs.3,70,000/-, the investigating officer concluded that the tractor was sold at reduced rate of Rs.3,15,000/- which is contrary to the evidence on record and finding no reason to disbelieve the statement of complainant and his father as also documentary evidence receipt which corroborates from the loan taken by the purchaser complainant from the bank for Rs. 3,70,000/-, the trial court prima-facie came to the conclusion 3 S.B.Criminal Misc.Petition No.1041/06 that there is ground to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC. On revision, the revisional court did not find any error in the order of the trial court. On the contrary, after examination of the record, the revisional court came to the conclusion that the view taken by the trial court is based on the evidence available on record and does not warrant interference. Both the courts below have concurrently found that prima-facie there is evidence to proceed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC. In my view, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the courts below is absurd or contrary to law. In this view of the matter, keeping in view, the limited scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in my view, the order impugned cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner warranting interference in inherent jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in serious miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court. The criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit and it is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp