Crl. Misc No. M-13409 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc No. M-13409 of 2009 Date of decision : 15.05.2009 Ramesh Kumar ....Petitioner V/s Randhir Singh ....Respondent. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) This is a petition seeking quashing of the order dated 01.10.2008 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind (Annexure P-2) whereby charges were framed against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC as well as order dated 25.03.2009 whereby revision petition against the said order was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that complainant, Randhir Singh alleges that accused agreed to sell a bus to the complainant for a consideration of Rs. 1,95,000/-. The consideration for this was paid to the accused. The accused, thereafter, assured that he will get a No Objection Certificate from the authority in Delhi and thereafter the bus will be transferred in the name of the complainant. The accused, thereafter, signed the necessary documents i.e. Form No. 28, 29 and 30 for registration of the vehicle at Jind. The accused also assured the complainant that he has paid the road tax of the bus in Delhi up to 30.06.2000. The accused, thereafter, assured that he will execute the rest of the documents for transfer of the registration of the bus. However, he failed to do so. The complainant Crl. Misc No. M-13409 of 2009 2 contacted the accused and told him that bus has been bought for school purposes. The complainant requested him to furnish the requisite certificate so that R.C. of the bus would be transferred in the name of the complainant. The accused still assured that he would do the needful and asked for Rs. 2,000/- which were given to him by the complainant. However, due to failure of the accused to do the needful, bus was impounded by Regional Transport Authority, Jind on 25.03.2001 and the complainant paid a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and the bus was not released being without registration certificate. The complainant again visited Delhi and requested the accused to execute the necessary documents as the bus had been impounded. However, the accused told the complainant to pay back an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- i.e. consideration amount earlier given by the complainant for purchase of the bus. The trial court has recorded pre-charge evidence and seven prosecution witnesses were examined. The accused was discharged for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 506 IPC. However, the accused was directed to face charge under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner challenged the order framing charge before the Sessions Judge, Jind on the ground that no offence under Section 420 IPC was made out. However, the revisional court turn down the plea of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition. The present petition which is in the nature of second revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegations levelled in the complaint offence under Section 420 is not made out and thus, order framing charge against the petitioner deserves to be Crl. Misc No. M-13409 of 2009 3 quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The trial court as well as revisional court have considered the plea of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be tried under Section 420 IPC. However, offence under Sections 467,468,471 and 506 IPC were dropped against him. The trail court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had a dishonest intention from the very inspection of the transaction and thus was liable to be charged under Section 420 IPC. The argument that proceedings under Section 420 IPC could not continue in view of the litigation before the civil court was also rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any legal infirmity with the impugned orders. This apart, in depth analysis of the evidence is not required at this stage. The trial Court after having come to the conclusion that the complainant had a prima facie case under Section 420 rightly decided to proceed with the trial after recording pre- charge evidence. Seven prosecution witnesses were examined at that stage and after considering their deposition the trial court proceeded to frame charge against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. The revisional court declined to interfere with the order framing charge. The plea raised by the petitioner that offence under Section 420 IPC is not at all made out can be decided after evidence is led before the trial court. It is not possible to arrive at this conclusion in inherent jurisdiction of this Court. I, thus, find no ground to quash the orders under challenge. The revision petition is hereby dismissed. 15.05.2009 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE