- (1.) The epitome of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that one Girdhari Lal was serving as a Patwari in the revenue department of Punjab. He died on duty on 6.9.1983. His daughter Suman Devi was stated to have got the job of Clerkcum-Typist on 22.7.1985 on priority basis in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. Dr. Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2), son of Girdhari Lal, was claimed to have also got the job of Dispenser and then Assistant Medical Officer by concealing material facts on the same grounds on priority basis in the office of Director Ayurvedic, Punjab .
(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that respondent No.2 got his indicated job on priority basis by concealing material facts and thus committed the fraud. Although petitioner-complainant Prem Kumar Rattan was not in any way aggrieved or connected with the affairs of employment of Dr. Ramesh Kumar (respondent No.2) by the Govt. of Punjab, but still, he moved a complaint against him (respondent No.2). In the wake of complaint of the complainant, initially a criminal case was registered against respondent No.2, vide FIR No.339 dated 13.8.2007, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 177 and 420 IPC by the police of Police Station Kotwali, Patiala in the manner described here-in-before.
(3.) Having thoroughly investigated, the police submitted the untraced report for cancellation of the criminal case. The petitioner-complainant filed a protest petition (Annexure P1) against the cancellation report. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the un-traced report, treated the protest petition as private complaint and summoned respondent No.2 as an accused to face the trial under Sections 177 and 420 IPC, by way of order dated 26.7.2008.;