MEHTA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and as also the counsel for the respondent.
(2.) THE instant misc. petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for, quashing the order dated 13.2.2007 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar in Criminal Revision No. 9/2004 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sri Vijaynagar in Case No.24/2004, took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. Assailing the orders of Courts below, Mr. N.L. Joshi, counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case even if the allegation of the complainant is accepted at his highest than too, the case which has been projected is that the petitioner made certain fraudulent entries in his account books pertaining to the 'Aadat' transaction* said to have taken place between the complainant and the petitioner. THE complainant's case is that the entries were made so that, the complainant could be defrauded of the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the said allegation is accepted to be highest than too, the act of the petitioner does not extend beyond the preparation to commit the offence of cheating. He further submits that there is no allegation or averment of the complainant that the petitioner even made any attempt to cause wrongful loss to the complainant by the so called fraudulent entries or that he actually caused any loss to him. Thus, he submits that the order impugned whereby the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent No.2 has opposed the Misc. Petition and submits that present misc. petition is nothing but a second revision and a second revision by the same party is barred by virtue of Section 397 of the I.P.C.
(3.) FOR a proper appreciation of the arguments advanced at bar the concluding finding of the trial Court in the impugned order is reproduced herein below: JUDGEMENT_2179_RAJLW3_2012Image1.jpg Thus, from a perusal of the above conclusion, it is apparent that even the trial Court while taking 'cognizance has come to the finding that the petitioner allegedly made certain entries in his record so that the complainant could be cheated thereafter. Even if the said finding regarding the entries having been fraudulent made in the petitioner's the entries having been fraudulent made in the petitioner's record is accepted than too, there is no allegation that such fraudulent entries were even attempted to be put to use.;