[2026:RJ-JP:13798] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5594/2015 Padamnabh Khatri S/o Shri Janki Lal Khatri, aged about 47 years, R/o Tonk Road, Mantown, Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through PP. 2. Mohan Lal S/o Shri Gajanand, R/o Baharanwada Khurd, Tehsil Khandar, District Sawai Mdhopur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma for Dr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr. Kawal Singh Loha JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/04/2026 1. By way of filing the present petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 06.03.2014, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur whereby charges have been framed against the accused petitioner for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Revisional Court i.e. the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sawai Madhopur, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.10.2015. 3. Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole allegation of the complainant-respondent against the petitioner is [2026:RJ-JP:13798] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5594/2015] that inspite of receipt of fertilizer, payment for the same was not made by the petitioner. Counsel submits that the aforesaid allegation of the complainant does not fall within the purview of cheating as defined under Section 420 IPC. Counsel submits that a suit for recovery was filed by the petitioner against the complainant and the same was decreed ex-parte by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sawai Madhopur, vide judgment and decree dated 06.02.2009. Counsel submits that the complainant-respondent filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Consumer Forum, Sawai Madhopur, however, the same was rejected on the grounds of non- maintainability vide judgment dated 17.03.2011. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioner to frame the charge under Section 420 IPC. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Lastly, counsel for the petitioner argued that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a civil dispute for recovery of money amounts to abuse of process of law. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Paramjeet Batra Vs. State of Uttrakhand and Ors., reported in (2013) 11 SCC 673. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant-respondent as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submit that the present case falls within the purview of Section 420 IPC as the offence of cheating has been committed by the petitioner by not making payment for the purchased fertilizer. Counsel submits that the Court below has rightly framed the charge [2026:RJ-JP:13798] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5594/2015] against the petitioner by passing the impugned order, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petition is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 8 Perusal of the impugned order dated 06.03.2014 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sawai Madhopur indicates that the Court below has passed the order in a cursory manner and no reason has been assigned for framing of charge against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC. Though, the Court is aware of the settled proposition of law that charges can be framed on the basis of suspicion but at the same time, the Court framing charge cannot lose sight of the factual aspects of the matter and some reasons are required to be assigned by the Court below while passing the impugned order. The impugned order reflects that the Court below has given reference of the orders passed by the Civil Court and come to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence available on record, prima facie case is made out against the petitioner for framing the charge but not a single assertion/averment has been made in the impugned order to show that a prima facie case is made against the petitioner for framing of charge. 9. On this count alone, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate for passing fresh order after hearing the arguments of both the sides. It is expected from the Court below to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. [2026:RJ-JP:13798] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5594/2015] 10 Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/19