BRAHM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Code) the petitioner has sought setting aside of the order dated 11.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge thereby rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for directions to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code filed along with his complaint dated 10.1.2007 for investigation with further prayer to direct the SHO of the concerned police station to lodge an FIR against the accused persons for the criminal offences which they allegedly committed, under appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal code. Further relief sought is issuance of the order for summoning of the accused person and to take cognizance and conduct the trial.

(2.) COMPLAINANT had purchased a car vide No. DL -2F AH 0100 make Skoda in the month of November 2004 from respondent No. 1 the Managing Director of M/s Silvertone Motors Pvt. Ltd. which was insured with respondent No. 4 Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd. vide police No. 0195293018 in October 2005. The policy was to expire on 2.11.2006. In April, 2006, the said vehicle met with an accident at Alipur, Delhi and was taken to the workshop of respondent No. 1 and 2. The said car was inspected by respondent No. 5 authorized surveyor who submitted his report and prepared the claim. This claim was sent to respondent No. 4. The surveyor assessed the total amount to be spent on repairs of the said car as approximately Rs. 6 lacs. However, respondent No. 2 prepared the estimate amount including labour charges and costs of spare parts etc. at Rs. 10,70,311/ -. Subsequently, petitioner received repair bill for Rs. 8,73,900/ - to which he objected on the plea that the insurance company was ready to pay Rs. 5,78,946/ -. The possession of the vehicle was not to be delivered to the petitioner till he cleared the balance amount of Rs. 3,33,650/ - as the respondent No. 4 had finally agreed to pay Rs. 6,03,000/ -. The petitioner has not taken the possession of the vehicle he has not paid the balance amount. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the bill for Rs. 8,73,900/ - was raised by respondents No. 1 and 2 without any information, knowledge or approval or permission of the complainant and the said bill is exaggerated which has been prepared with the connivance of the respondents. The respondent No. 1 and 2 have failed to satisfy the petitioner about their claim as raised in the bill. It is further alleged that on 22.11.2006 when complainant approached respondent No. 2 to enquire about status of his car and for taking other relevant documents, he was only handed over the copy of the bill and it was then that he was told that respondent No. 4 paid only Rs. 6,03,000/ -. It is also submitted that the satisfactory letter/discharge voucher and claim form was never got signed from the complainant and therefore the said documents are forged and manipulated by the accused persons. Despite demand by the complainant vide his letter dated 30.11.2006 he has not been handed over original documents like registration certificate, insurance policy and other relevant documents. It is further submitted that petitioner has been cheated by the respondents but the police refused to take any action on his complaint dated 14.12.2006 which was sent to police station Moti Nagar. Thereafter, he filed the complaint before learned metropolitan magistrate along with an application under Section 156(3) of the Code seeking directions to the police to register a case against the respondents and investigate the matter. However, learned trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 156(3) of the Code and listed the matter for recording of pre summoning evidence on 5.5.2007. This order was challenged by the complainant by way of a revision petition being Criminal Revision No. 34/2007. This revision petition was also dismissed by the learned ASJ by a detailed order dated 11.7.2007.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.