Criminal Revision No.943 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.943 of 2001 Date of Decision 13.08.2010. Nirbhai Singh and another ...... Petitioners VERSUS Rajinder Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: None for the petitioners and respondent No.1. Mr.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.2-State. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This revision petition is directed against the order dated 02.06.2001, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, accepting the revision petition, preferred by respondent No.1-complainant (herein referred as 'the complainant'), setting aside the order dated 06.12.2000, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, and directing the trial Court to frame the charge under Sections 406, 420 IPC against the petitioners- accused (herein referred as 'the accused'). The factual matrix of the case is that Harminder Singh, brother of the complainant Rajinder Singh, had deposited a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- with the accused, to be repaid alongwith interest @ 2% per month but Harminder Singh died. However, on demand, made by the complainant, to repay the said amount, the accused persons refused to respond. Thereafter on application, made by the complainant, a case FIR No.71 dated 28.04.2000 under Sections 406, 420 IPC was registered against the accused Criminal Revision No.943 of 2001 2 persons. After investigation, the challan was presented. The trial Court vide its order dated 06.12.2000 observed that the transaction appears to be of civil nature and discharged the accused. The relevant observations of the trial Court read as under:- “There are no allegations that accused had dis-honestly retained the amount of complainant or his brother. The amount was paid by said Harminder Singh to be repaid with interest which is dispute of civil nature. So in this respect, no offence under Section 406, 420 IPC is made out. In this respect, I am also supported by the rulings cited as G.Sagar Suri versus State of U.P. 2000 (1) RCR 707 (SC) and ruling of Hon'ble High Court cited as Prem Singh versus Sohan Lal 2000 (3) RCR 145.” On filing of the revision petition against the order dated 06.12.2000, by the complainant, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, while reversing the order, directed the trial Court to frame the charge against the accused persons. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.1. Since the case has been pending before the trial Court since 18.09.2000 at the charge stage and the proceedings have been installed on account of the pendency of the present proceedings, therefore, it would be appropriate to examine the matter at my own end with the assistance of Sh.Amit Chaudhary, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab. The bare allegations, as culled out from the said FIR, transpires that the same are of civil nature. No element of entrustment are made out. Similarly, there was no element of dishonest intention and misappropriation at the very inception. The allegations are of purely civil nature. The dispute Criminal Revision No.943 of 2001 3 was regarding the non-payment of the amount alongwith interest, advanced by the complainant for which the only remedy is to file the suit for recovery and not to initiate the criminal proceedings. The impugned order, passed by the Revisional Court, is without taking into consideration the basic fundaments for constitution of the offence under Sections 406, 420 IPC, as such, the same, being perverse and against facts, needs to be reversed and the observations, made by the trial Court, need to be upheld. Resultantly, this revision petition is accepted; impugned order is set aside and the petitioners are discharged of the charges framed against them under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 13.08.2010 mamta-II