The court established that the petitioner's actions of charging money for a job in Kuwait and failing to fulfill the promise constituted offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC.

1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 17.11.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (for short, "the revisional court" hereinafter) in criminal Revision Petition No. 52/2005, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) came to be dismissed.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner took the amount from the respondent No. 2-complainant for sending him to Kuwait for a period of two years and the complainant was sent to Kuwait. It was the complainant, who after having served for two months, was removed from his job. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner after having charged the amount for sending the complainant at Kuwait, has already sent him to Kuwait which has come on record, and therefore, no offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC is made out against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., 2008 (1) WLC (SC) Criminal 34 and a decision of this Court in Madanlal v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 346 .

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that the petitioner charged the amount of Rs. 70,000/- from the complainant for sending him to Kuwait for a period of 'two years at the salary of Rs. 6000/- per month whereas after having reached at Kuwait, the petitioner was not allowed to serve at least for a period of two years as assured by the petitioner at the time of charging the amount and he was also paid lessor amount for a period of two months and thereafter, turned out from Kuwait. Learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Inderpal Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1105/2003, decided on 8.12.2006 and a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s India Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 885 .

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the trial court as well as the revisional court. By a detailed and well reasoned order dated 29.10.2005, the trial court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 IPC against the petitioner.

5. On the report lodged by the complainant, the matter was investigated and police submitted FR on the ground that the matter is of civil. nature. Thereafter, the statements of witnesses were recorded by the trial court. The trial court, on perusal of the statements of the witnesses, more particularly the statements of the witnesses in whose presence the transaction took place for sending the complainant to Kuwait for a period of two years at the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month, came to the conclusion that the statements of the witnesses Jakir Hussain, Majid, Gulab Khan, Nek Mohammad, Nazir, Sarajudin and Nizamdin and complainant recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.PC. prima facie established that the petitioner initially took Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter, Rs. 40,000/- and then Rs. 3000/- from the complainant to send him Kuwait for a period of two years at the salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month which the petitioner failed to fulfill and the respondent-complainant was sent back from Kuwait only after two months and he was paid only 40 deenar for a period of two months and thus, committed the offence as noticed above. On a revision, the revisional court by a detailed and well reasoned order after perusal of the record and re-appreciation of material available on record came to the conclusion that the order passed by the trial court is perfectly in accordance with law and there is ground to proceed against the petitioner for the offences menti