The court emphasized the need for strong suspicion of the accused's guilt at the stage of framing charges and the requirement of exceptional circumstances to quash a charge or FIR.

JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 22.02.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 593/2019, and quashing of FIR bearing no. 56/2008 registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi under Sections 406/420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that respondent no. 2 had lodged a complaint with the police whereby he had stated that he had good relations with the accused persons including the present petitioner and by misusing the same, the petitioner and his brother in May, 2000, had induced the complainant to invest money in their business on the pretext that it would give good returns to the complainant. Upon their insistence, the complainant had invested Rs.1,00,000/-. It was stated that in order to gain trust of the complainant, the accused persons had given him Rs.2,000/- each on two occasions. Thereafter, the complainant had again given Rs.1,56,000/- to the petitioner by taking the same from his friend Satvir in October, 2000. It was further alleged that the accused persons had approached the complainant seeking Rs.2,00,000/- for starting the business of sale and purchase of vehicles. They had also given the complainant Rs.10,000/- twice as return on his investment. Accordingly, the complainant had parted away with Rs.2,16,000/- in favour of the accused. Again in 2004, as alleged, the complainant had given Rs.6,50,000/- to the accused persons, by obtaining the same from his friend Satvir and one Anita Kukreja, which the accused had obtained from him on pretext of purchasing 1-2 cars in his name. However, no such vehicles were purchased in the name of complainant. The complainant had later got to know that the accused persons had purchased two buses in the name of one of their relatives who was a resident of Pathankot and they had asked the complainant to further pay Rs.6,50,000/- for becoming an equal partner in the same. Consequently, the complainant had arranged Rs.6,50,000/- on his own and from his friends and had handed over the same to the accused persons. Thereafter, in January, 2006, the petitioner had again demanded Rs.1,32,000/- as a friendly loan from the complainant for a period of two months. It was alleged that in the end of January, 2006, when the friends of the complainant had started demanding their money back from the complainant, the complainant had asked the accused persons to return his money and the petitioner had handed over two cheques worth Rs.2,50,000/- each dated 20.02.2006 and 28.02.2006 to him. However, upon presentation, these cheques were returned unpaid and it had come to the knowledge of the complainant that the cheques so presented did not belong to the petitioner, and rather belonged to one Sh. Rohit Chopra. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered under Sections 406/420 IPC. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 406/467/471/506 IPC.

3. Vide order dated 28.09.2019,the learned Metropolitan Magistrate- 01, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 406/467/471/506 of IPC.

4. However, upon challenging the aforesaid order by way of a revision petition, the learned ASJ vide impugned order dated 22.02.2020 partially allowed the same by setting the charges framed under Sections 467/471/506 IPC, but retained the charge under Section 406 IPC. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:

"25. The page in the diary does not bear the name of the revisionist as well as date of signing the same. The handwriting has matched with the admitted handwriting and signature. The evidentiary value of the page showing to the receipt of Rs. 25 lakh will be seen at the appropriate stage. The effect of discrepancy in the amount will be seen at the appr