IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 02.09.2025 PHOOL SINGH ....Petitioner Versus PANKAJ SEHGAL AND ANOTHER ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Mr. Shashi Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner.

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for setting aside the order dated 04.06.2015, Annexure P-2 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, dismissing the Crl. Complaint No.75 dated 26.03.2011, titled as ‘Phool Singh vs. Pankaj etc.’, and the order dated 24.05.2016, Annexure P-3, whereby learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad has dismissed the criminal revision.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant-petitioner filed the complaint under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506 IPC against the respondents with the allegations that he alongwith one Sarvesh was engaged by respondent No.1 for the construction of the official hut at Sector 21-C, Faridabad and during this period, respondent No.1, proprietor of M/s Sehgal Automobiles allured the complainant to purchase a motor-cycle from his company, to which he agreed. On 17.05.2017, the motor-cycle registered in the name of City Trade Link was handed over to him in the presence of Sarvesh and a sum of Rs.35,400/- was charged in cash and receipt and other documents were to be given to him after the transfer of the vehicle in his name. However, respondent No.1 did not transfer the vehicle in the name of the complainant. On having enquired, the complainant came to know that he had been cheated because the documents were forged and did not belong to Pankaj Sehgal. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3. In order to prove his case, the complainant appeared himself in the witness-box as CW 1 besides examining Sarvesh as CW 2, and also led documentary evidence.

4. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the complainant, the trial Court dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 04.06.2015. Aggrieved thereagainst, he filed a revision, which was also dismissed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide impugned order dated 24.05.2016.

5. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Learned counsel submits that the Courts below have wrongly dismissed the complaint without appreciating the evidence on record, which is sufficient to summon the respondents. It is proved on record that the respondents have cheated the complainant by forging the documents.

7. Heard.

8. It is apposite to refer to the order dated 04.06.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, the relevant of which reads thus:

“7. Perusal of document Ann.C/3 shows that same is ownership record and data. It is in the name of M/S City Trade Link and ahead of this, name of complainant is mentioned. As per complaint, motorcycle was handed over to him but perusal of report under section 202 Cr.P.C. shows that partner namely Pankaj Goyal, in City Trade Link has stated that he purchased the motorcycle from Sehgal Auto Mobile and he has used the motorcycle in the company and after one year he has sold the same. This means that this motorcycle was never handed over to complainant by the accused. Moreover, it is admitted fact that motorcycle was in the name of City Trade Link. When the motorcycle was in the name of M/S City Trade Link then why the complainant has purchased the same. Moreover, as per report under section 202 Cr.P.C. Ann.C/3 ownership record and data is not a title document. Ann.C/4 the service receipt of motorcycle shows that it was also in the name of City Trade Link, not in the name of complainant. Moreover, Ann.C1/2 which is legal notice sent by the complainant to accused no.1 no where shows that motorcycle has been given back by the complainant to accused on 10.8.2010 on the asking of complainant. Further more, perusal of report u/s 202 Cr.P.C. shows that a invoice dated 17.5.2007 has also been attached showing that the motorcycle has been sold to M/S City Trade Links. Fur