1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.127/2009 Munshi Khan vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order: 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. Complainant Kadu submitted a complaint against petitioner Munshi Khan, Gaffar, Nasru and some other unknown persons in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC which was sent to police station Gangapur City under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. After investigation the police submitted a negative final report. Feeling aggrieved by the negative Final Report, the complainant filed a protest petition. On the protest petition statement of the complainant and his witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate,Gangapur City vide order dated 15.5.2001 took cognizance against the petitioner Munsihi Khan, Gaffar and Nasru under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC and summoned the accused. However, the petitioner Munshi Khan could not appear before the trial court. It seems that on 2 20.6.2008 the trial court considered the matter for framing of charge and the trial court after hearing both the sides and taking into consideration the evidence on record discharged the two co-accused persons Gaffar and Nasru of the offence under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC but no order was passed in respect of the petitioner as he was absconding. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order declaring him absconder in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Gangapur City came to be dismissed vide order 2.1.2009 treating the revision petition as time barred. The petitioner has moved this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the learned revisional court as well as for his discharge as on the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution,no case can be said to be made out against him. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned P.P. and perusd the orders passed by the courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during trial of the case statements of the three proseuction witnesses were recorded and on the basis of the statements recorded, no case is made out against the petitioner also. 3 Referring to the observations made by the trial court in its order dated 20.6.2008 discharging the co-accused persons, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence can be said to be made out against the petitioner and as such, he also deserves to be discharged. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the trial court has come to the conclusion that against the petitioner also no case can be said to be made out but the trial court has not discharged the petitioner only on the ground that he was absconding. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is living at Mumbai and had no knowledge about the order of taking cognizance and as soon as he returned to his village he came to know about the order of taking cognizance and the order of discharge. On the strength on the above submissions learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the petitioner also deserves to be discharged and the criminal proceedings pending against him be quashed. Learned P.P. has not seriously objected the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the material placed on the record of the file. 4 From the order dated 20.6.2008 passed by the trial court and from the statements of the witnesses namely, Kalu Ram Meena (complainant), Pappu and Haneef it is clear that the witnesses have admitted that no role was played by the petitioner and no chating or fraud was played by him and the same has been attributed to the `Bompay persons'. It has also come on record that the petitioner has never obtained money from them and the money was handed over to `Bombay-persons'. In such a situation it is clear that no prima facie case is made out against the present petitioner also and he also deserves to be discharged. In the result, this misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings against him in criminal case No.1546/2003 pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City are, hereby, quashed. BHANWAROO KHAN,J. bairwa 5 S.B.Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.112/2009 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.127/2009 Munshi Khan vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order: 28.1.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. Mr. Pankaj Gupta for respondent no.2. Since the main petition has been disposed of finally, this stay application also stands disposed of. BHANWAROO KHAN,J. bairwa