Prima facie evidence of dishonest intention and deception is essential in cases of cheque dishonor under Section 420, IPC. Limitations exist on invoking revision under Section 397(3) and the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482, CrPC.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This petition under Section 482, CrPC is directed against the impugned order dated 28.08.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the revisional Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 26/2004, by which the revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner and affirmed the order dated 20.02.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420, IPC.

2. The facts of the case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this criminal miscellaneous petition are that on 111.1999, complainant Najam Singh lodged an FIR with Police Station, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar alleging therein that accused-petitioner Vishnu Purohit contacted him and told that he is doctor by profession having a Laboratory and Blood Bank Licence and induced him to advance a loan of Rs. 3 lacs on interest. The accused-petitioner gave him a post-dated cheque. On the stipulated date, when the complainant asked the accused-petitioner for encashing the cheque, the accused started killing time. Thereafter, the complainant came to know that neither the petitioner is a doctor, nor he is having a licence for blood bank, nor the alleged laboratory building belongs to the petitioner. On this complaint, the police registered a case and after investigation, filed challan against the accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 420, IPC. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 20.02.2004, framed the Charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 420, IPC. Aggrived with this order of the trial Court, accused-petitioner preferred the revision petition before the learned Revisonal Court and the Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 28.08.2004, dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the trial Court framing charge against the petitioner. Hence, this miscellaneous petition.

3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below.

4. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that instead of filing a complaint for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the complainant has filed the FIR for the offence under Section 420, IPC. It has further been contended that the ingredients of the offence under Section 420, IPC are not made out and the Courts below have erred in law and on facts in framing charge under Section 420, IPC against the petitioner. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Shakuntala Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 1996 CrLR 829 (Raj), wherein the proceedings were quashed for want of necessary ingredients constituting the offence under Sections 415 and 420, IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor, refuting the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has supported the impugned orders.

5. The respondent-complainant has come with the case that the accused-petitioner pretending himself to be a doctor running a laboratory and having a blood-bank licence, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver a sum of Rs. 3 lacs, though as a loan, against the post-dated cheque with the intention not to repay the amount in question, for which he closed his bank account. The post-dated cheque given to the complainant was presented to the bank, which was dishonoured with the endorsement that the petitioner has closed the account, meaning thereby that at the closure of the account, there was no balance with the bank.

6. In M/s. OPTS Marketing Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2001 CrLJ 1489, a Full Bench of Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court, while dealing with a question of dishonour of a cheque and pros