N.M. Kasliwal, J. - (1.)This petition under section 482 Cr. PC. is directed against the judgement of learned Sessions Judge, Tonk dated 26th Aug., 1982, whereby he allowed the revision and set aside the order of learned Munsif Magistrate. Tonk, dated 26th February. 1982, issuing summons to the non-petitioners for offences under sections 420/120 I.P.C.
(2.)A complaint has been filed by the petitioner on 18th April, 1981, against 8 accused persons under section 420/120 B IPC. It has been alleged in the complaint that accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were doing the business of money lendihg in the firm name Mithalal Pannalal. Accused Nos. 1,2 and 3 obtained an expat decree against the complainant for a sum of Rs. 21,200.00 from the court of Additional District I Judge, Tonk. Another decree was obtained by the accused persons for an amount of Rs. 1,500.00 from the Court of Munsif Malpura. The accused persons being If registered money lenders had filed an account in the aforesaid court in which the amount has been shown as having been paid by the complainant. It has been further alleged in the complaint that the complainant had paid the entire amount after filing of the suit and no amount was due against him. It has been further alleged that the accused persons in a malafide manner submitted an execution petition No. 37/71 in the court of District Judge, Tonk and in that execution petition it was not mentioned that the amount had already been paid by the complainant. The accused persons malafidely and in an illegal manner got attachment of the petrol pump of the complainant situated at Malpura and got the sale confirmed. The complainant then filed revision before the High Court which was dismissed. The complainant thereafter submitted a special leave petition before the Supreme Court where the confirmation of sale was cancelled. In view of these circumstances it has been prayed to punish the accused persons of the offences punishable under sections 420/120 B IPC. The learned Munsif Magistrate Malpura by his order dated 12th June, 1981, dismissed the complaints taking the view that the dispute between the parties was of civil nature. The petitioner aggrieved against the ; aforesaid order filed a revision in the court of Sessions Judge, Tonk. Learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, by his order dated 4th Feb., 1982, allowed the revision and sent the case back for further inquiry to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk, who transferred the case to Judicial Magistrate, Tonk. According to the petitioner, he filed certain documents before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who after taking into consideration the statement of the petitioner and the documents took cognizance in the case and summoned three accused persons by order dated 26th Feb., 1982. The accused persons then filed a revision against the order of the learned Magistrate dated 26th Feb., 1982. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 26th Aug., 1982, allowed the revision, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and quashed the order of taking cognizance against the accused persons. In these circumstances the petitioner has filed the present petition under section 482 Cr. PC.
(3.)It was contended by Shri Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner that there was enough material before the learned trial court for taking cognizance in the case and the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to set aside the order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that even if no offence is made out under Sec. 420 IPC, an offence under Sec. 209 Penal Code is made out on the basis of the facts alleged in the complaint and the oral and documentary evidence placed on record. Mr. Gupta, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the complaint is totally false. There was no question of making any payment of money by the complainant. Though a decree was obtained against the complainant on 6th Feb., 1972, but no grievance at any stage was raised prior to filling of the present complaint on 18th April, 1981 that the amount had been paid by the complainant and the decree was obtained fraudulently. It was further pointed out that though an application was submitted under order 21 rule 90 Crimial P.C. for setting aside the sale on 12th May, 1972 but in this objection petition also it was nowhere alleged that the expat decree was obtained fraudulently or that the amount in question was paid by the complainant to the accused persons. It is further submitted by Mr. Gupta that in the account submitted by the accused persons, the amount was not shown payable from the complainant on the ground that suit had already been filed I for the realisation of the said amount.