- (1.) Tersely, the facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, are that, petitioner Inderjeet Singh Bedi was stated to have been fraudulently and dishonestly cheated by the private respondents and they did not allow him to work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. It was alleged that when the petitioner requested them either to allow him to work accordingly or return his amount, then, they flatly refused to return the amount. He reported the matter to the police, but no action was stated to have been taken. Thereafter, he moved an application/complaint under section 156(3) Cr.PC (Annexure P3) before the Magistrate for directing the SHO of Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh (respondent No.3) to register a criminal case against the private respondents. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that no ground to issue such direction is made out and treated the application as complaint, vide impugned order dated 18.1.2012 (Annexure P4).
(2.) The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition for issuing direction to the police to register a case against the private respondents and also to set aside the impugned order (Annexure P4), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition.;