Rekha Mittal, J.@mdashThe present petition lays challenge to order dated 18.02.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon,
whereby revision petition filed by the respondents, has been allowed and the complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467,
468, 471, 506 read with Section 120-B IPC and summoning order dated 08.08.2005, have been dismissed. The facts relevant for disposal of the
present petition are that, on 13.09.2000, Gram Panchayat Agon, Ferozepur Jhirka, auctioned 400 acres of land. The complainant (petitioner
herein) took the aforesaid land in an open auction for cutting the trees. He deposited Rs. 7,08,500/-, vide receipt Nos. 83 and 84 dated
13.09.2000 and 20.09.2000, respectively. Manohri-respondent No. 3 (accused No. 1 in the complaint) gave the possession of the land to the
petitioner. The petitioner later came to know that the land was around 190/200 acres in place of 400 acres and, accordingly, he moved application
on 27.12.2000 to the respondents. Later, a legal notice was sent through Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate, Ferozepur Jhirka. The petitioner was
called for hearing on 23.01.2001, at 11.00 am in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Ferozepur Jhirka. Sardar Mohammad,
accused No. 4 (since deceased) met the petitioner and advised him to come in the next week as the Block Development and Panchayat Officer
was not available. The petitioner again went to the office on 30.01.2001, all the accused were present and obtained thumb impressions on blank
paper, on the representation that the same were needed for getting him refund of the amount. On 17.04.2001, the petitioner came to know that an
amount of Rs. 1,62,000/- had been withdrawn by the accused. The petitioner along with his brother Idrish and Ismile met Sardar Mohammad and
he started abusing the petitioner.
2. After recording preliminary evidence consisting of statements of Idrish (PW 1), Ramjan (PW 2) and Ismile (PW 3) and documents, the Sub
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka passed an order summoning respondents and Sardar Mohammad (since deceased) to face trial for
offence u/s 420/120-B IPC.
3. Feeling aggrieved against order dated 08.08.2005, passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, the respondents/accused filed revision
petition, which was allowed, vide impugned order dated 18.02.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of summoning the accused for facing criminal proceedings, the Court is not required to
scrutinise the evidence minutely and meticulously to find out whether material on record is sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused. It is
further submitted that if on reading of allegations contained in the complaint and evidence led during enquiry, a prima facie case is made out; the
Magistrate is bound to summon the accused to face trial. It is further argued that keeping in view averments of the complaint and the evidence led
on record, the learned trial Court rightly recorded a finding that there are sufficient grounds to summon all the accused for commission of offence
punishable u/s 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, but the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of revisional
power to set aside a legal and valid order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is prayed that the order passed by the revisional Court may be set
aside and the accused should be directed to face trial.
5. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge would reveal that the reasons which weighed in the mind of
the Court to set aside the summoning order passed by the trial Court are recorded in paras'' 11 to 14 of the said order. One of the observations
made by the Court says that in an inquiry conducted by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Ferozepur Jhirka vide his report dated 15.10.2001
submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, it was mentioned that the respondent (petitioner herein) had received the entire amount through
various cheques, details of which were given in the report itself. Counsel for the petitioner, despite specific query raised by this Court, fails to give
any satisfactory reply that if the payment was made to the petitioner through cheques, how his plea that his signatures were obtained on a blank
receipt, can hold ground that a prima facie case for committing fraud by the respondents, is made out. It is none of the plea of the petitioner that
though the cheques were issued in his name but the money was withdrawn by the respondents. Another fact which needs consideration is that as
per allegations of the complainant, thumb impressions of the petitioner on a blank paper were obtained by Sardar Mohammad, who has since
passed away, which fact has been taken into consideration by the revisional Court. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any error much
less infirmity, illegality and perversity in the impugned order as would call for interference by this Court.
7. This apart, the petitioner has filed revision petition u/s 401 of the Code. The petitioner is the complainant in a complaint case, who is also a
victim. The complaint filed by him has been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon while accepting the revision petition preferred by
the respondents. The order of dismissal of complaint amounts to acquittal of the respondents. As the complaint has been dismissed resulting in
acquittal of the respondents, the petitioner shall have remedy of appeal against acquittal u/s 378(4) of the Code and he was required to seek leave
to appeal from this Court in the manner contemplated u/s 378(3) and (4) of the Code. In this regard, I find fortification to my view from a recent
judgment of this Court in M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Tube Products Ltd. and Others, . The revision petition preferred by the petitioner is
not maintainable in the eye of law. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition is dismissed.