Krishna Lal vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Hon''ble Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and as also the counsel for the respondent. The instant misc. petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 13.2.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Revision No. 9/2004 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Case No. 24/2004, took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence u/s 420 I.P.C.

Assailing the orders of Courts below, Mr. N.L. Joshi, counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case even if the allegation of the complainant is accepted at his highest than too, the case which has been projected is that the petitioner made certain fraudulent entries in his account books pertaining to the ''Aadat'' transaction said to have taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. The complainant''s case is that the entries were made so that, the complainant could be defrauded of the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the said allegation is accepted to be highest than too, the act of the petitioner does not extend beyond the preparation to commit the offence of cheating. He further submits that there is no allegation or averment of the complainant that the petitioner even made any attempt to cause wrongful loss to the complainant by the so called fraudulent entries or that he actually caused any loss to him. Thus, he submits that the order impugned whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No. 2 has opposed the Misc. Petition and submits that present misc. petition is nothing but a second revision and a second revision by the same party is barred by virtue of Section 397 of the I.P.C.

For a proper appreciation of the arguments advanced at bar the concluding finding of the trial Court in the impugned order is reproduced herein below:

Thus, from a perusal of the above conclusion, it is apparent that even the trial Court while taking cognizance has come to the finding that the petitioner allegedly made certain entries in his record so that the complainant could be cheated thereafter. Even if the said finding regarding the entries having been fraudulent made in the petitioner''s the entries having been fraudulent made in the petitioner''s record is accepted than too, there is no allegation that such fraudulent entries were even attempted to be put to use.

From a logical conclusion of the aforesaid discussion, the highest finding which can be arrived is that petitioner made preparation of wrong documents for the purpose of committing cheating. A preparation of commit cheating is not an offence. Preparation has been defined as an offence in the I.P.C. only for the offences of dacoity and sedition. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Misc. Petition succeeds and the same is allowed. It is ordered that orders dated 13.2.2007 passed by Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Revision No. 9/2004 and order dated 20.1.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Case No. 24/2004 are hereby quashed and all the subsequent proceeding sought to be taken against the petitioner are hereby quashed.