1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.665/2000 Raj Kumar Jain vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of Order ::::: February 12,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN None present for the petitioner Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. Respondent no.2 Shyam Dhoot lodged a first information report against the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner came to his shop, got a cassette player in his car costing of Rs.5,850/- and went from there saying that he will sent the money from his office but when he went to his office and demanded for the money of the cassette player he threatened him and did not make payment. On the basis of this report a case for offence under Sections 406/420 IPC was registered against the petitioner at the police station Kotwali, Jaipur vide FIR No.113/1995. After investigation a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC in 2 the court of ACJM No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The trial Magistrate on the basis of the evidence and material collected by the investigating officer and after hearing pre charge arguments vide order dated 29.9.1999 framed charge against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. Feeling aggrieved of the order framing of charge, the petitioner has filed the instant petition with the prayer to quash the charge so farmed against him and to discharge him. None appeared for the petitioner. Heard learned P.P. and perused the impugned order and also the material available on the record of the case. A perusal of the impugned order and the material and evidence available on record it is found that it was from very initial stage that the petitioner choose to defraud the respondent and got the cassette player fitted in his car and from the very inception the petitioner was not having the intention to pay the amount. As per the order itself he even refused to recognize the respondent. As per the pleading of the petitioner in the instant petition it seems that the petitioner has taken a plea that it is a case of civil nature but while going through the order of 3 the lower court it is not born out from the facts that it is simply a case of civil nature. Having regard to the order passed and the pleadings of the petitioner, I find that it is a case where no interference in the criminal proceedings is required to be called for. The petition lacks merit hence, deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the misc. petition stands dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa