Mr. Hari Pal Verma, J, - The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure P-1), whereby the complaint under Sections 406, 420, 506 and 120-B IPC filed by the petitioner-complainant against the respondents was dismissed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal.

2. Similarly, the judgment dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) has also been impugned, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned Magistrate, was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal.

3. Briefly stated, petitioner Gaurav Gupta (hereinafter mentioned as the complainant) had filed a complaint against respondents No.1 and 2 Joginder Goel and Manoj Kumar (hereinafter mentioned as the accused) with the allegations that the accused party is known to the complainant for the last 8-10 years. The nephew of the complainant was ill and accused No.1 helped the complainant during his illness. Accused No.2 is the nephew of accused No.1. Both the accused used to apply for plots in HUDA whenever registration was floated in the State of Haryana. The accused allured the complainant to join them in this business. The accused had stated that they had purchased a plot at Sector 13, Kurukshetra and accordingly, the complainant gave Rs.1,07,000/- to the accused as his share to the extent of 10%. Bimal Kumar Malakpuria son of Chaturbhuj Malakpuria had given 33% share, whereas rest of the share was to be given by the accused.

4. The Government floated a scheme for HUDA plots at Ellenabad, District Sirsa and the accused applied for the plot in the name of complainant also. However, the accused with malafide and dishonest intention from the very beginning obtained 10 signed blank cheques from the complainant on the pretext that these cheques are to be given to HUDA office, Ellenabad and after certain formalities, the same were to be returned to the complainant when the instalments of the plot were cleared. The complainant did not foresee any dishonesty. The complainant and Bimal Kumar asked the accused party about the status of plot in Kurukshetra. However, the accused party kept on lingering the matter on the pretext of price hike. However, later on, the complainant came to know that the accused had not purchased any plot at Kurukshetra and under the garb of a criminal conspiracy grabbed Rs.1,07,000/- from the complainant.

5. On 09.02.2012, accused No.2 Manoj Kumar came to the complainant to settle accounts in lieu of the plot at Ellenabad and gave a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. However, on 30.04.2012, when the said cheque was presented by the complainant in his bank account, the same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds on 04.05.2012. The complainant approached the accused persons, who assured him to pay the said amount along with statement of accounts in lieu of the plot at Kurukshetra. Thereafter, in August 2012, the complainant received a notice from the Court and came to know that accused No.1 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by misusing the cheque entrusted to the accused persons for enclosing the same with the application form of HUDA plot at Ellenabad.

6. The said complaint was sent for enquiry under Section 202 Cr.PC, wherein the Enquiry Officer reported that the parties had a monetary transaction with each other. Accused No.1 had deposited entire money with HUDA, Sirsa in the name of complainant Gaurav Gupta, but the complainant and his father Jagdish Gupta did not produce any document to show that money was actually given by them for purchase of HUDA plot. Thus, it was found that the parties are dealing with each other in property business and are sharing the profits mutually.

7. While dismissing the complaint vide impugned order dated 01.09.2015, learned trial Court has observed as under:

“From the entire preliminary