Hon’ble Kashi Nath Pandey, J.—This revision has been filed against order dated 24.6.2009 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura in case No. 1905 of 2009, State of U.P. v. Ashok and others, under Sections 420, 406 and 504, IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Mathura by which the application of the revisionists for discharge has been rejected.

2. I have gone through the order in revision. According to the prosecution case it is admitted that for the sake of purchase of plot the amount has been paid through cheque in 1988. The explanation of the accused that the said amount has been invested by her was not accepted by the Court but it was clear in the mind of the parties that the amount was not being invested for the sake of any income but clearly for the sake of obtaining plot. It has also been admitted that she had not been given plot nor her amount has been returned. In the petition moved by the revisionists for discharge, it has been stated that after disposal of dispute of the company payment shall be made to all the investors. It has also been stated that the company is in financial crisis.

3. From the First Information Report and collected evidence oral and documentary, charge-sheet has been submitted. On the basis of the evidence collected by I.O. the trial Court reached to the conclusion that there are sufficient material showing prima facie case against the revisionists-accused for framing charge at the stage of framing of charge.

4. It is not expected from the Magistrate to go into the merit of the case. The learned Court discussed the provision of Sections 415, 420 and 406, I.P.C. and found the present case is within the framework of those sections. At the stage of charge the evidence is not to be scrutinized and analysed on merit. Coming to the stage of trial it has to be analysed and accordingly the application was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 24.6.2009.

5. I have also gone through the grounds of revision in which it has been mentioned that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the appellant under Sections 420, 406 and 504, I.P.C. but at the stage of charge, if the evidence collected by I.O. if not rebutted, the case may end into conviction, then charge can be framed. If the evidence in the record is not rebutted the case may end into conviction.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionists argued that as the company is in financial crisis, after liquidation the due amount of each person may be given. It has also been argued that the defence of the revisionists should also be considered while framing charge. It has also been argued that the respondent has got remedy to recover the amount by way of filing company winding petition. It is not denied by the revisionists that the complainant has deposited the cheque amounting of Rs. 92,000/- dated 8.3.1988 in favour of Karmyogi Builders Pvt. Ltd. office at Delhi. Learned Magistrate without application of judicial mind and without perusing the evidence on record passed the impugned order in mechanical and arbitrary manner. The allegation contained in the FIR and evidence on record is civil in nature. The evidence collected by I.O. has not demonstrated any prima facie cognizable offence against the revisionists. No case under Sections 420, 406 and 504, IPC is made out. The evidence produced by the revisionists during the discharge has not been considered which is against the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijay Satardekar and others, 2008(14) SCC 1. It has also to be noted that in discharge application revisionists categorically mentioned that one of the director of the company, Mr. Viswa Nath Agarwal was claiming himself to be Chairman and Managing Director of the company. Due to this reason, one Mr. Sandeep Tundon appointed as arbitrator and awarded the award in the year 2000 against which writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court Delhi was preferred which was dismissed, against which SLP was filed