Dinesh Kumar Singh - (1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the judgement and order dated 16.9.2015 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Ambedkar Nagar in Criminal revision No.Nil of 2015, whereby the revisional court affirmed the oder dated 1.9.2015 passed by the Magistrate in Complaint Case No.0305136 of 2014 rejecting the complaint in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of record, misinterpretation of law and without applying his mind.
(2.) The petitioner/complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. against the accused-respondents praying therein for registering and investigating of the offence against them. The allegations in the application are that in the month of December, 2010, the accused along with one Vinod Tripathi came to the house of the complainant and convinced him that if he can give Rs.eight lakhs, then he would speak to the Chief Minister Ms. Mayawati for appointment of his son in the Excise Department as Constable. He spoke in a convincing manner in presence of Vinod Tripathi and wife of the complainant Urmila and son Lalit Mishra. Thereafter, believing in the assurance given by the accused, the complainant gave him Rs.eight lakhs through various cheques, which were deposited by the accused in his bank account. However, neither the employment of his son was secured nor the accused returned Rs.eight lakhs to the complainant. When he demanded money, he was threatened that he would be beaten up severely and would be falsely implicated in various cases including SC/ST Act.
(3.) Learned Magistrate treated the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. as complaint case and recorded the statements of the complainant and the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. However, despite recording the finding of fact that the money has been given to the accused by the complainant on his false promise that job of Constable in the Excise Department for the son of the complainant would be secured, the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that such contract/consideration is against the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.;