[2025:RJ-JP:35215] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4199/2014 Shyopal Son of Shri Devalal, Resident of Village Thikariya, Tehsil and District Tonk, Raj. ----Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through its Public Prosecutor ----Non-Petitioner 2. Satyanarain Soni S/o Shri Kanheiya Lal Soni, aged about 44 years, R/o Kacholiya, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk, Raj. ----Accused/Non-Petitioner For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Saini, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A. Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.G.A. Mr. Laxmikant Malpura, Adv. with Mr. Swapnil Singh Patel, Adv. (for the respondent No.2) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 03/09/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 20.06.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional Court') in Revision Petition No.75/2014 whereby learned Revisional Court while allowing the revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant, upheld the order dated 21.07.2012. 2. Vide the order dated 21.07.2012, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') in Case No.44/2011 took cognizance against the [2025:RJ-JP:35215] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4199/2014] respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 3. As per the brief facts of the case, the respondent No.2 owed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner/complainant and in this regard, the respondent No.2 executed an agreement dated 06.07.2007 in favour of the petitioner on a stamp paper but later on, the respondent No.2 failed to repay the amount to the petitioner/complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/complainant filed a complaint before learned trial Court. After inquiry, vide order dated 21.07.2012, learned trial Court took cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and summoned him for the trial. 4. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 challenged the order of cognizance before learned Revisional Court by way of filing a revision petition No.75/2014 whereby learned Revisional Court vide order dated 20.06.2014 while allowing the revision petition filed by the petitioner/complainant, quashed and set aside the cognizance order dated 21.07.2012. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 had to repay the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner/complainant and for that purpose, he also executed an agreement dated 06.07.2007 on stamp paper, but respondent No.2 failed to comply with the said agreement and did not repay the money to the petitioner/complainant. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent No.2 had a malafide intention from the very beginning and thus, the respondent No.2 committed an offence of cheating against the petitioner/complainant, therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:35215] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4199/2014] learned trial Court validly took cognizance against the respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. However, learned Revisional Court committed grave error in allowing the revision petition and quashing the impugned order dated 21.07.2012 passed by learned trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 21.07.2012 passed by learned trial Court be restored and the impugned order dated 20.06.2014 passed by learned Revisional Court be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 submitted that from perusal of the complaint, it is clear that it was a dispute of money lending for which a recovery suit has also been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the respondent No.2 before the Court of Civil Judge therefore, the matter pertains to a civil dispute between the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, no criminal liability can be attributed to the respondent No.2. Learned counsel prayed that the present petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/complainant. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.2 had to pay Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner/complainant, for which an agreement was also executed between the parties. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner/complainant filed a suit for the recovery of the said amount and the same is pending [2025:RJ-JP:35215] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4199/2014] before the Civil Judge therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed, as the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the matter pertains to civil dispute between the parties and also, this Court does not find any valid reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by learned Revisional Court while deciding the revision petition vide the impugned order dated 20.06.2014, therefore, the present petition lacks merit and thereby, the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. 12. Stay application and all other pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /38