JUDGMENT :

Aman Chaudhary, J.

Present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of order dated 16.02.2015, Annexure P2 passed by learned JMIC, Panchkula and order dated 13.11.2015, Annexure P3 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula.

2. Briefly put the facts of the case are that the complainant stated that he is an illiterate person and knows to write his name only. Respondent No.2 is his relative and respondent No.3 is known to respondent No.2. The accused-respondents had cordial relations with the complainant and used to rely upon the advice of the respondents. The complainant sold and purchased different property at Himachal with the help of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 told him that purchasers of the complainant would not make payment in cash and they will transfer the amount through cheques in his bank account, therefore, a bank account was opened by complainant with the help of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 got his signatures on certain blank documents and other papers. A cheque book was issued and accused procured his signatures on blank cheques and same were retained by the accused. In the year 2004-05 the accused-respondents introduced accused Mohd. Iqbal, Advocate to the complainant. Friendly relations developed between respondent No.2 and complainant. Respondent No.1 also obtained signatures of the complainant on number of blank papers on the pretext that he will be requiring them for preparing applications and petitions on his behalf. However, their relations turned sour. Complainant demanded money and also asked them to hand over the blank cheques and blank papers but the accused refused to do so.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence produced by the petitioner and had passed the impugned orders. He submits that the petitioner has given complete details of events in the complaint and the role played by the respondents and how they had retained various cheques. He submits that the learned Courts below did not consider that at the time of summoning the accused, the Court has only to see a prima facie case against the respondents-accused. He further submits that there are other illegalities and irregularities in the impugned orders and the same are liable to be quashed.

4. Heard.

5. It is apposite to refer to the order of the learned trial Court, passed while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner, by observing thus:-

"After perusing the documents on file and after going through the statements of complainant and his witnesses this court has arrived at a conclusion that no offence has alleged by the complainant is made out in the present case. The complainant has alleged that the accused have forged documents against him but forgery has not been established by the complainant. The complainant has himself stated that he signed certain blank cheques and blank papers but no such document, as alleged to be forged, has been brought on record by the complainant. As per offence under Sections of misappropriation, the complainant has failed to establish that there was entrustment of any property by him. Therefore, offence under Section 403, 406 and 409 of IPC have not been prima facie established. Likewise element of cheating is absent in the present case, therefore, no prima facie case against the accused under aforesaid sections the accused are made out."

6. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the revision petition affirming the order of the trial Court by holding thus:-

"5. After hearing the learned counsel for the par