HARSH KUMAR, J. - (1.) Case called out. None present for opposite party no. 2. Heard Shri V.N. Mishra learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) The revision has been filed against the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad rejecting the application of discharge filed by accused, revisionist in S.T.No. 899 of 2011 (State v. Jai Ram @ Jai Kumar) under Sections 420, 452, 506, 354 and 307 I.P.C.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that the revisionist has been falsely implicated for the offences mentioned against him; that the real fact is that the first informant, opposite party No. 2 was Priest of the Church and taking undue advantage of his position, he obtained money from several persons on the pretext of providing him service and also obtained a sum of Rs. 9,35,000/- from the revisionist for providing him house; that when the revisionist demanded his money back the opposite party No. 2 provided him a cheque of a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- which was dishonoured; that the opposite party No. 2 has gone dishonest and misappropriated the entire money of Rs. 9,35,000/- paid by the revisionist to him which was earned by the revisionist through his small business over stall of Chhola Kulcha and was collected by selling his house as well as by obtaining money on interest; that the opposite party No. 2 in fact carries on business of property dealer and by deceiving the persons has misappropriated their funds and obtained the post of Priest in the Church; that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 for lodging F.I.R. was moved by opposite party No. 2 with false allegations, that no offence under Sections 420 and 307 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionist; that the impugned order is wrong on facts and law and is liable to be set aside and by allowing the revision the revisionist is liable to be discharged of the offences.;