DINESH JAGABHAI RABADIYA Vs. HARISH KERAIYA NILEKENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner, who was original accused No.2 in Criminal Case No.1062/2000 in the Court of learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.) to quash and set aside the proceedings of the charge -sheet bearing No.53/2000 on the basis of C.R.No.597/1999 registered with Jamnagar "B" Division Police Station which is registered as Criminal Case No.1062/2000.

(2.) HEARD learned advocate Mr.B.P.Munshi for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.L.B.Dabhi for the respondent No.3 State. Learned advocate Mr.J.V.Mehta for the respondent No.1 is absent. The respondent No.2 is deleted.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr.B.P.Munshi for the petitioner original accused No.2 of the aforesaid Criminal Case has submitted that the respondent No.1 herein, who was original informant lodged a police complaint on 21.11.1999 in Jamnagar "B" Division Police Station alleging the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code that the respondent No.1 herein had purchased one Jeep bearing No.NH -04 -AA -4110 at the price of Rs.3 Lacs and the original accused No.1 Surendra Raghav Shetti who was respondent No.2 herein who was deleted from the petition approached respondent No.1 herein and expressed his desire to run the Jeep on hire basis and upon such promise being given by the original accused - Surendra Raghav Shetti, the jeep was entrusted him on 03.08.1999 on payment of monthly hire charge at the rate of RS.10,000/ -; that subsequently, the accused Surendra Raghav Shetti did not pay any rental charges though the respondent No.1 herein demanded the same for several times. Thereupon, the respondent No.1 lodged the aforesaid criminal complaint before the police against the original accused No.1 - Surendra Raghav Shetti (the respondent No.2 who was deleted from the petition). It is submitted that considering the FIR as it is, nowhere the name of the petitioner is mentioned as an accused person and nowhere the respondent No.1 original informant alleged any offence in his FIR punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. That as per the police case, subsequently by drawing the panchnama on 21.01.2000 in presence of panchas, the Jeep was recovered from the possession of the present petitioner. That thereby in the charge -sheet filed by the police in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jamnagar, as accused No.2, the name of present petitioner is mentioned in connection with the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The copy of the charge -sheet is produced at page -10 of the petition and considering the same, it appears that as accused No.1, the name of respondent No.2 herein who was, subsequently, deleted from the proceedings of this petition is mentioned and it is alleged in the charge -sheet that the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by him, and the present petitioner who was accused No.2 in the said charge -sheet had recovered the possession of the Jeep from the accused No.1 knowing that accused No.1 Surendra Raghav Shetti had obtained the possession of the said Jeep illegally. It is submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he was alleged to have committed the offence punishable only under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. That though no allegation was levelled by the present petitioner for any offence whatsoever, but simply because by drawing panchnama, the Jeep was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner was wrongly implicated as co -accused in the said Criminal Case. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer committed a serious illegality in filing the joint charge -sheet against both the accused. Learned advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the entire dispute is outright of civil nature and the original informant, respondent No.1 herein misused the process of the Court by invoking criminal jurisdiction and, therefore also, this is a fit case that the criminal proceedings be quashed qua the present petitioner. Therefore, it is submitted that the present petition is required to be allowed and the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1062/2000 is required to be quashed and set aside qua the present petitioner.