M K BABY Vs. SHAN FINANCE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 240 Cr.P.C. framing charges against him under Sections 406, 418 & 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. He prayed before the learned Magistrate that he may be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C. The request was turned down and charges were directed to be framed against the petitioner.

(2.) Allegations have been raised against the petitioner, the 2nd accused in a complaint filed by the defacto complainant/a financier, who had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the 1st accused. The petitioner is the 2nd accused. The petitioner was a guarantor in the said hire purchase agreement. The 1st accused who allegedly availed the loan and entered into the hire purchase agreement with the petitioner as a guarantor allegedly, contrary to the stipulations in the hire purchase agreement, had sold the vehicle to another person without the consent and knowledge of the defacto complainant, the financier. Thereby it is alleged that the 1st accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 & 420 I.P.C. The 1st accused does not challenge the order before me and it is only the petitioner-the 2nd accused who has come before this Court. He faces allegations under Sections 406, 415 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.

(3.) On a perusal of the impugned order and after hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, opportunity was given to the learned Public Prosecutor to take instructions and place before the Court the specific circumstance on the basis of which charge is sought to be framed against the petitioner-the 2nd accused. The learned Public Prosecutor wanted time to take instructions from the Investigator. The Investigator was also directed to be present before the Court.