The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest intention to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.

1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the order dated 06.12.2010 (P5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on the ground that challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 235 dated 27.12.2008 under Section 406, 420 IPC, P S Nurmahal, District Jalandhar (P3) has been submitted in the trial Court by the local police of Police Station Nurmaha.

2. The aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the present petitioner against respondent No. 2. The allegations in the FIR were that the present petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 02.11.2006 with respondent No. 2 -Surjit Singh for purchasing the land. Earnest money was also paid by the petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid settlement. Thereafter, instead of executing sale deed in favour of the present petitioner, the said Surjit Singh executed sale deed dated 04.02.2008 in favour of Sohan Singh. As such, allegation of fraud and cheating with regard to not returning the earnest money to the petitioner was levelled against respondent No. 2.

3. After investigation, challan was filed by the prosecution. However, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur vide its order dated 25.09.2009 found that the dispute was of civil nature and no criminal offence was made out against respondent No. 2. Accordingly, respondent No. 2/accused was discharged. Aggrieved, the present petitioner filed revision petition against the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the JMIC. Phillaur. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide its judgment dated 06.12.2010 dismissed the revision petition. Hence, the present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. While challenging the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner raised two fold arguments. Firstly, the case was fixed for framing of the charge. Challan has already been filed and at the stage of framing of the charge, the Court was required to confine to the material collected during the investigation and prima facie case for framing charges made before it. Secondly, the challan is a prima facie indicative of some incriminating material against the accused. Even, strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge. As such, the order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the JMIC, discharging respondent No. 2 and the judgment dated 06.12.2010 passed by the appellate Court dismissing the revision against the order dated 25.09.2009 are bad in law.

5. In order to substantiate his arguments, reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra reported as 1998(4) RCR (Criminal) 433 as well as on the judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of Rajendra Nath Datt and others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and another reported as 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 254 and Samran Singh v. State of Haryana reported as 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 495.

Heard.

6. It is well settled proposition of law that second revision is not maintainable under Section 397(3). Revision filed against the order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Phillaur has already been dismissed vide judgment dated 06.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. The present petition is nothing but a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. At the same time, it is also well settled that petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be entertained until and unless either there is a misuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice. However, in the present case, no such ground has been raised which may enable this Court to come to a conclusion that there has been any misuse of process of law or miscarriage of justice.

8. Even on merit, no offence under section 406, 420 IPC is made out against respondent No. 2. As per the facts in the present case, Respondent No. 2 -Surjit Singh is stated to have entered into