HASSAN KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for setting aside order dated August 17, 2002 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, whereby the petitioner has been directed to be summoned in a complaint filed by respondent No.2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120 -B IPC and further order dated November 6,2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby the revision against the above referred order has been dismissed as not competent.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that respondent No.2 filed complaint against the petitioner, who is his real brother, along with Fazrudin son of Sh. Mohar Khan and Rasul Khan son of Sh. Munira, under Sections 419,420,467,468,471 read with Section 120 -B IPC in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh with the allegations that the petitioner had cheated him by way of misrepresentation, fraud and forging the documents as the same were never executed by him. Though the alleged incident pertained to the year 1985, the complaint was filed in 2001. After recording preliminary evidence, learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh ordered the summoning of petitioner and other accused. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, before learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which was dismissed as not competent vide order dated November 6,2006 by relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 ACJ 507 (S.C.) :, 2004(4) CCC 307 (S.C.):, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 349.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was a case where stale issue was sought to be raised by the complainant, with a view to avoid his liability in the surety furnished for M/s. Fazrudin and Company, otherwise the petitioner does not have anything to do with the dealings of the complainant with the other accused. The petitioner is not even mentioned in any of the documents signed by the parties. He further submitted that solitary statement of complainant was not enough for reaching to a conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioner as there was no other material before the Court to have recorded its satisfaction. Accordingly, the prayer is for quashing of the summoning order dated August 17,2002.