1. - By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to FIR bearing No.51/2003 registered with Police Station Sadar, District Alwar as well as to the order taking cognizance of offence under Sections 365 & 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that non-petitioner - complainant was an employee and looking to the requirement, was transferred to Delhi office vide order dated 10th July, 2001. When the order of transfer was not complied with, his services were terminated on 13th July, 2001. A dispute against termination is pending before the labour Court, Alwar. The non-petitioner-complainant, however, submitted complaint later on alleging criminal offence by the petitioner under Sections 467, 468, 365 & 120-B of IPC. The court passed an order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police registered the FIR and after investigation, gave negative final report. A protest petition was filed by the complainant-non-petitioner and thereupon, the Court took cognizance of the offence. The order aforesaid has been challenged, as it has been passed in ignorance of the facts available on record and without giving any reason as to why negative final report is to be discarded. After termination of non-petitioner, there was no relation of employee and employer between them so as to abduct him. The allegation in the FIR/complaint is also to get blank papers signed by the non-petitioner to prepare resignation letter and was used. The dispute pending before the labour Court is not as to whether resignation was taken by duress but to challenge order of termination dated 13th July, 2001. The court below thus failed to consider the material before taking cognizance for offence under Sections 365 & 120-B of IPC. The cognizance for the offence under Sections 467 & 468 of IPC was not taken. In view of above, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner - complainant submitted that intention of non-petitioner was to get rid of the petitioner, thus he was initially transferred to Delhi office and later on, his services were terminated in an illegal manner. To further settle the score, the non-petitioner - complainant was abducted, thus an offence under Sections 365 & 120-B of IPC was made out. The Court thus took cognizance of offence against the petitioner. The interference in the aforesaid order may not be made in view of the above.

4. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties.

5. The perusal of FIR reveals various allegations, which includes that non-petitioner - complainant was asked to come for settlement by Ramanand Goyal and thereupon certain blank papers were got signed for preparation of resignation. The fact is, however, that much prior to the incidence, services of non-petitioner was terminated. It is a case where petitioner has made out a case of resignation by using blank papers. The story aforesaid was not accepted by the Police and even by the Court below while refusing to take cognizance of offence under Section 467 & 468 of IPC. In my opinion, the Court below has failed to give any reason to discard the negative final report whereas before taking cognizance, it was required, though it is stated that statements of complainant were recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and of other witness, under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

6. I , however, find that no material was produced during the course of investigation, which can prove the allegation of taking blank papers, rather the existence of such document is denied by the petitioner. In view of above, even apprehension of use of such document in pending dispute before the labour Court is not made out. Taking the case in totality, I do not find that the order of cognizance can be allowed to sustain.

7. In view of above, the order dated 24th February, 2007 for taking cognizance under Sections 365 & 120-B of IPC is quashed and the criminal proceedings in criminal case No.42/2003 in pu