JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1. Instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 229/2021 registered at Police Station Khamnor, District Rajsamand for offence under Section 4 20 , 406, 120B IPC and Section 4 , 5, 6 of Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 229/2021 came to be lodged by the complainant against the petitioners stating therein that the present petitioners came to his village about three and half years back and suggested to invest money in their company and assured that the company will provide 5% dividend. The complainant invested a sum of Rs. 14 lacs on different dates, however, the petitioners accused failed to give returns and also did not refund the invested amount. Thus, the accused persons cheated the complainant and took money from the complainant.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits, that as per definition of “conventional chit” means a transaction in which a person responsible for the conduct of the chit enters into an agreement with a specific number of persons that every one of them shall subscribe a certain sum of money by way of periodical instalments, for a definite period and that such subscriber, shall in his turn, as determined by lot or by auction or by tender or in such manner as may be provided for in the chit agreement be entitled to a prize amount, whereas, in the present case, the company of petitioners dealt in business of shares/stock securities and therefore, offence under Section 4 , 5, 6 of the Act of 1978 is not at all made out. It is argued that petitioners were operating the business of shares and the complainant had invested his amount in stock securities and as per terms of business, the investor and operator both are equally liable for loss and profit. Thus, if there is any loss to the company, the liabilities passes on to both the parties. It is argued that the complainant had invested a sum of Rs. 4 lacs in the company, out of. which a sum of Rs. 3 lacs has already been withdrawn by the complainant. Similarly, complainant's brother Basant Singh had deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lac, out of which, Rs. 90,000/- has been refunded in. the account of Basant Singh. It is also argued that the basic ingredient of offence of cheating u/s. 420 which is fraudulent or dishonest inducement (which is required to be in existence since inception) is clearly lacking. The complainant only with a view to harass and pressurize the petitioner, has filed the present FIR. Therefore, it is prayed that the FIR may be quashed. He placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Joseph Salvaraj v. State of Gujarat , (2011) 7 SCC 59 : AIR 2011 SC 2258 , Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar , 2014 SCW 6310 and order passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Bhupindr Singh Kochar v. State of Raj , 2015 WLC (Raj) UC 663.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that offences as alleged by the complainant has been prima facie proved after thorough investigation by the police inasmuch if the petitioners had operated the business of shares, there would have been an agreement between the parties but no such agreement exists between the parties. The petitioners are involved in illegal business of cheating the innocent persons and several other criminal cases of similar nature have been registered against the accused petitioners at Mumbai (Maharashtra). Moreover, the fraudulent and dishonest intention can be gathered from the fact that the accused petitioners were absconding fr