( 1 ) IN this petition, the petitioner-complainant has requested to quash the impugned order of the learned magistrate and also the order passed by the Sessions Court confirming that order.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts, which gave rise to the present matter before this Court, are: complainant became friendly with the respondent accused- a lecturer then in Central College, who used to visit Canara Bank, where he (complainant) was working as a Clerk, and house later. With a mala fide intention to deceive, the accused requested him (complainant) to arrange loan of Rs. 10 lakhs for promotion of garments business in Wilson Garden at Bangalore with a promise to return the same along with interest within 3 years and also to secure a job to him (complainant) in any Bank at U. S. A. That was believed by the complainant when the accused dishonestly induced him and as such, he arranged and paid loan of Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused on different dates. Thus, the accused cheated him by making false promises and false representation that he was the Proprietor of the said garment factory and executed agreement hypothecating machines etc. , of said garments factory, though the accused was not its proprietor and not intending to get a job to him in U. S. A. or return the amount taken. So, according to complainant, accused made false representations to have amount fraudulently from him and had the same on different dates and left India in May, 1990 after cheating him and thereby committed various offences namely, cheating, committing criminal breach of trust etc. , punishable under Sections 406, 420, 422, 467, 468 and 120-B of I. P. C. However, after recording sworn statement of the complainant and considering the documents filed by the complainant along with the complaint, the learned magistrate issued process against the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC only. On his appearance, the respondent-accused filed an application under Section 245 of Cr. P. C requesting to discharge him. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate passed an order dated 18. 12. 1998 discharging the respondent-accused under Section 245 (2) of Cr. P. C. That was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner-complainant in the Court of Sessions in Crl. R. P. No. 261/1998. It was dismissed on 28. 9. 2001. Hence, the petitioner is before this court under Section 482 of Cr. P. C.

( 3 ) AFTER notice to the respondent-accused, with consent of both sides, taken the matter for final hearing and heard both sides. Perused the records carefully.

( 4 ) IT was contended for the petitioner-complainant that without considering whether charge could be said to be groundless or, whether prima facie, there is sufficient material to proceed further against accused for framing charge, the learned Magistrate has wrongly discharged the respondent accused on surmises and conjectures, that too, without considering the material on record (though not permissible under law to do so) and, that the entire approach to the matter by both the courts was against the letter and spirit of section 245 (2) of Cr. P. C and as such, both the impugned orders require to be quashed.

( 5 ) ON the other hand, it was vehemently argued for the respondent accused that the learned magistrate was well within his jurisdiction to appreciate the material on record and form an opinion as to whether the accused could be discharged and that the averments in the complaint and material on record, when gone through, clearly demonstrate that it was the petitioner-complainant, who himself assumed and thought that he would be getting a job through the respondent accused and not that the respondent accused had misrepresented the complainant at any time that he would secure a job for the complainant in U. S. A and at any rate, the view taken by the learned Magistrate, affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, does not require to be interfered with by this Court, Perused the records carefully.

( 6 ) IT is well

Click Here to Read the rest of this document