PEGASUS COMPUTERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") assailing the order dated 25.10.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby Criminal Revision Petition No.264/2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner filed a complaint for the offences under Sections 191/192/194/195/196/197/200/201/203/409 of IPC on the allegations, inter alia, that petitioner had availed a car loan from M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. for purchase of a Santro LS car. The petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.1,47,047/- (Rupees One lakh forty seven thousand forty seven only) to M/s. Charu Motors Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand) was to be paid by the finance company namely, M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. to M/s. Charu Motors Pvt. Ltd., on behalf of the complainant/ petitioner. The amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) was to be repaid in 48 equal monthly instalments by the petitioner. The petitioner issued 48 blank post-dated cheques towards the repayment of the said loan. The first instalment was fraudulently encashed by M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd. on 27.01.2001 instead of due date i.e. 15.03.2001. The financer abruptly terminated the agreement just 18 days after the encashment of the first EMI and the said Santro car was forcibly reprocessed by the officials of the financer. On 29.05.2001, the petitioner lodged a complaint registered at P.S. Naraina for the offence under Section 379 IPC but no action was taken by the police. The petitioner filed W.P. (Crl.) No.856/2003 seeking investigation by some other independent agency as the police was not conducting fair and proper investigation. The SHO of Police Station, Naraina filed a status report stating that since the petitioner had defaulted in making payment of financer, the vehicle was repossessed and accordingly, a cancellation report dated 20.08.2002 was filed. The said cancellation report was accepted by learned Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the complainant alleged that the report filed by the SHO is false and fabricated and is based on representation made by Mr. Amit Labru, Area Manager of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Primus Ltd.

(3.) The pre-summoning evidence was adduced by the petitioner. Vide order dated 27.04.2012 learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi dismissed the complaint on the ground that the letters sent by Mr. Amit Labru, Area Manager of the financer company to the SHO is not "evidence" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and the offence under Sections 191/192/194/195 of IPC pertains to the offence of perjury and giving "false evidence" were not made out and secondly, the complaint filed in the year 2010 was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.