The Court's decision was influenced by the existence of suspicion against the accused and the question of forged signatures on the documents.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble court will be pleased to send for the records of the courts below, peruse the same & after perusal set aside the order of the cognizance or pass any other orders that this Hon'ble Court deems fit & proper."

2. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred against the order, dated 14.3.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Churu, in Criminal Revision Case No. 47/2014 (38/2014) and against the orders dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Churu, taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. against the revisionist-petitioner, Vijay Kumar, in Criminal Case 50/2014, Krishnajit v. Vijay Kumar.

3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned Court for the revisionist-petitioner are that the revisionist-petitioner and the private respondent, Krishnajit, are brothers, who reside at Hisar, Haryana and that on 21.08.2013, the private respondent filed a written report at Police Station, Churu against the petitioner Vijay Kumar, District Transport Officer, Churu and his clerk Anoop Swami, and other persons, all residents of Hisar; stating therein that he had purchased a Honda Activa Scooter at Hisar, on 19.08.2009, the bill for which was collected by the revisionist-petitioner in the name of the private respondent and that he also took the delivery of the said scooter as the purchase money was paid by him, and it was his mobile number submitted for the said process and his sign on the purchase bill of the said vehicle. And that, the police registered a case against the revisionist-petitioner for the offences as above mentioned, on the basis of the said report, and upon investigation, filed a negative report and started separate proceedings under Section 182/211 I.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner submits that the learned Magistrate passed no orders on the said negative report, filed by the police, and recorded the statement of the private respondent No. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and took cognizance against the revisionist-petitioner for the above mentioned offences.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that the Honda Activa Scooter in question was purchased by him, that he was the one who paid the money for it and the delivery of the said vehicle was also taken by him.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner also submits that the registration process for the said vehicle was done in accordance with the law at the RTO, Churu as was also found by the concerned police authorities.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner further submits that a suit for partition has been filed between the private respondent and the revisionist-petitioner, their brother, their mother, and that the revisionist-petitioner is being pressurized to compromise, and that the F.I.R. against him herein, is a counter blast case of the private respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist-petitioner placed reliance on the following cases; T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala 2011 Cri.L.J. 3329 (SC), The State of Punjab v. Brij Lal Palta 1969 CAR 137 (SC), Dharam Pal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. 2013 Cri.L.J. 3900 (SC) Amar Singh v. Drugendra Kumar Mishra 2016 Cri.L.J. 1342 (Uttarakhand High Court).

9. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist-petitioner and submits that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order taking cognizance against the revisionist-petitioner for the offences under the aforementioned sections, looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the evidences placed on the record before it.

10. This Court observes that the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated