SARDAR TRILOK SINGH Vs. SATYA DEO TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On May 1, 1976 the respondent in this appeal by special leave filed a complaint against 10 persons, including the three appellants, under Ss. 395, 468, 465, 471, 412, 120-B/34 of the Penal Code in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur. An inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter called the Code, was held by the Magistrate. Thereafter on January 17, 1977 the Magistrate passed an order directing the issue of summons against nine accused only under Section 395 of the Penal Code. He dismissed the complaint against accused No. 10 Smt. Ram Misra, wife of Shri B. C. Misra, accused No. 9. Before the summonses were actually issued, on the same day i.e. January 17, 1977 the appellants moved the Allahabad High Court to quash the criminal proceeding in question in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 of the Code. The High Court by its order dated February 21, 1977 has refused to quash the said proceeding and dismissed the appellants' application. Hence this appeal.

(2.) We do not consider it necessary to state and discuss all the points involved in this case in any detail. Only a few of them may, however, be mentioned for the purpose of allowing this appeal and quashing the criminal proceeding initiated was clearly an abuse of the process of the Court.

(3.) The dispute between the parties relates to the purchase of a truck from Sardar Harbans Singh, accused No. 5. The total cost incurred in the purchase of the truck was in the neighbourhood of Rs. 60,000. We do not mention the exact amount as there is some difference between the parties in regard to the same. On March 29, 1973 an agreement was entered into between the respondent and his then partner one Bhagwati Prasad, accused No. 6 on the one hand and M/s. Sardar Finance Corporation, Kanpur on the other, which firm was represented by appellant No. 1 as its partner, in accordance with which about half the money was advanced by the said firm which enabled the complainant and his partner to acquire the truck. According to the complainant's case the amount advanced by the said firm was by way of loan while according to the case of the appellants it was on the basis of a hire-purchase agreement entered into between the parties in support of which a formal agreement in writing was also executed. The complainant's case is that only a blank form was got signed by him along with other several papers bearing stamps and the form had not been duly filled up. The complainant's case further was that he had paid back two monthly instalments the total of which was Rs. 3,566 and the third instalment was payable on July 31,1973. But before that all the accused in a high-handed manner during his absence came to his house and in spite of protest by his wife forcibly under threat of arms removed the truck and thus they are said to have committed the various offences including the offence of dacoity. The case of the appellants was that according to the hire-purchase agreement a sum of Rs. 1,783 was to be paid every month by the 15th day of the month. The first instalment payable was on the 15th May, 1973 second on the 15th June, 1973 and the third on the 15th July, 1973 and so on. The entire sum due was to be cleared in twenty-three instalments. On default of any one monthly instalment the Financier had the right to terminate the hire-purchase agreement even without notice and seize the truck. Since the July instalment was not paid by the 15th of that month the complainant and his partner surrendered the truck on 24th July, 1973. Some more events happened thereafter which are not necessary to be mentioned here. In nutshell the case of the appellants was that the respondent's case against them and others that they committed any offence on the 30th July, 1973 was absolutely false.