- (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11-8-2008, in Criminal Case No.366/2008, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. THE petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 21-6-2010, passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayan in Cr. Revision Petition No.39/2008, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition and has confirmed the order dated 11-8-2008.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had created a society and they collected Rs.1000/- from different persons. However, when these persons requested for return of the amount, the petitioners refused to disclose the account, and to refund the money. THErefore, the complainant filed a complaint in the court of learned Magistrate. Under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate, sent the complaint to the concerned police station Bayana for investigation. THE Police submitted a negative final report on the ground that the matter is of civil nature. THEreafter, the complainant filed a protest petition. THE learned Magistrate recorded statements of the complainant Roop Singh, and his other witnesses, under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Considering the statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 11-8-2008, took cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. THE petitioners challenged the cognizance order by filing a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana. But the learned Revisional Court, considering the fact that the cognizance order is a reasoned one, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 21-6-2010. Hence, this Misc. petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that both, the complainant and the petitioners, have filed cross-cases against each other. Secondly, after a thorough investigation the police has submitted a negative final report, ostensibly on the ground that it is a case of civil nature. However, despite submission of the negative final report, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners. Lastly, all the documents are with the complainant, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have nothing to do with the concerned case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 11-8-2008 clearly shows that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report filed by the police. The learned Magistrate has noticed that according to the witnesses the petitioners had created a society whereby they collected Rs.1000/- from different persons. However, when these persons requested for returning the amount, the petitioners refused to oblige. Therefore, in the opinion of the learned Magistrate the offences under sections 420 and 406 IPC were, prima facie, made out. Since the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for disagreeing with the negative final report, this Court sees neither any perversity, nor any illegality in the impugned order. According to the order dated 21-6-2010, the learned Judge has clearly observed that the cognizance order is based on cogent discussion of the evidence.
(3.) IT is, indeed, settled principles of law that power under section 482 Cr.P.C. to interfere with the order of cognizance is extremely limited one. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out any case for the interference by this court. Therefore, the instant misc. petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed.;