1. By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under sections 397, 401 of CrPC, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Criminal Case No.906/2008 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, whereby charge under section 406 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

2. The prosecution story, in short, is that petitioner is the Dealer of the tractors. Petitioner sold a tractor of Mahindra Company to complainant Mevalal which was also financed by the petitioner. The loan amount along with the interest Rs.3,21,000/- was to be repaid, but the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- in time. Thereafter, the petitioner took the tractor from the complainant forcibly before four years with cultivator and the same has not been returned till now. It is also alleged that petitioner sold the tractor to another person and committed cheating. Complainant Mevalal Kushwah sent a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Bhind, for taking legal action against the petitioner on which enquiry was conducted by the S.O. Phooph in which it was found that no offence is made out against the petitioner and there is only some money dispute between the parties. Thereafter, complainant again made a complaint on Samadhan online on which FIR has been registered against the petitioner at Crime No.72/08 under sections 420 and 406 of IPC. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, who in turn framed the charges against the petitioner under sections 420 and 406 of IPC by order dated 5.3.2009.

3. It is undisputed that being aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2009, whereby charges under sections 420 and 406 of IPC have been framed, Criminal Revision No.227/09 was preferred and this Court by allowing the revision, directed the learned Court below to pass a reasoned order and thereafter frame the charges if required. It is also undisputed that thereafter also charges under sections 420 and 406 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner. Against that order, petitioner again preferred criminal revision No.882/11 and this Court by allowing the revision vide order dated 17.11.2011 directed the Court below to comply with the order dated 17.3.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No.227/09.

4. The trial Court thereafter passed the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 framing charge under section 406 of IPC against the petitioner. Against that order, this criminal revision has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order passed by the Court below is illegal, perverse and bad in the eye of law and deserves to be set aside. He further submitted that tractor was financed by the petitioner and loan amount including the interest Rs.3,21,000/- was to be paid by the complainant, but the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.1,90,000/-. Thereafter, complainant offered his tractor for sale and tractor was sold by the petitioner and excess amount approximately of Rs.23,000/- was paid to the complainant. It is also submitted that a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Lahar, wherein in the investigation it was found that no offence was committed by the petitioner. Thereafter, again a complaint was lodged at Police Station, Phooph, where also it was found that no offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that because of political pressure this case has been registered.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all these aspects were not taken into consideration by the learned Court below. It is also submitted that there is only a civil dispute between the parties and no offence has been committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that ingredients of offence under section 406 of IPC are not made out. In support of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in S.W. Pala