SURESH PRASAD YADAV Vs. S K BAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. praying that the criminal proceedings against the applicant under Section 403/422, I.P.C. in Case No. 210 of 1991 S. K. Bawa v. Suresh Prasad Yadav pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate VI, Bareilly including the summoning order and the search warrant dated 14-3-1991 are sought to be quashed. It is further prayed that the direction be also issued for the release of Truck No. B.H.Q. 8755 in favour of the applicant. It appears that applicant Suresh Prasad Yadav is the registered owner of the Truck No. B.H.Q. 8755. Previously the Truck was owned by Sri Pramod Kumar who agreed to sell it to the applicant for a sum of Rs. 95,000.00. The applicant paid Rs. 30,000/to Pradeep Kumar as advance and approached the respondent, who is the Financier, for a loan of Rs. 65,000.00 in September 1986. The Bank drafts were given by the opposite party which was endorsed in favour of Pradeep Kumar and thus entire amount of Rs. 95,000.00 has been paid. According to the applicant, the entire amount financed by the opposite party has been paid as per details given in para 9 of the application. It is said that the applicant had to pay an amount of Rs. 86,978.75 only up to 7-2-1990 and he had already paid Rs. 93,884.00. The opposite party did not issue the hire purchase termination letter. On the contrary on 18-8-1990 the opposite party along with other persons tried to take away the truck forcibly. The opposite party also tried to negotiate the transfer of this truck. The applicant filed a civil suit, being Suit No. 58 of 1990, against the opposite party in the Court of Civil Judge; Varanasi. The suit was decreed on 22-2-1991, vide copy of the judgment Annexure 13. However, the opposite party filed a Criminal complaint against the applicant thereafter under Sections 403/422, I.P.C. and the applicant was summoned by the Court for 14-3-1991. A search warrant was also issued and the truck was seized and is, at present, lying at P. S. Adampur, Varanasi. It is submitted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are mala fide and the complaint has been filed with utterly false and concocted allegations, by concealing material facts.

(2.) The opposite party filed a counter-affidavit. It is not disputed that the opposite party is the financier. It is also admitted that a decree has been passed against the opposite party on 22-2-1991 but it is submitted that was ex parte decree. The factum of the filing of the complaint is admitted and it is stated that the applicant has not paid the money in accordance with agreement.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and I am clearly of the opinion that this is a case, if there was any, "where" the criminal proceedings must be quashed in exercise of power u/S. 482, Cr. P.C. for being blatant abuse of the process of the Court. It would appear from the admitted facts that the matter is essentially of a civil nature. The opposite party is admittedly the financier and he advanced a sum of Rs. 65,000.00 allegedly on hire purchase agreement. It is submitted by the applicant that he has paid back the entire amount while the opposite party contends that the amount has not been paid in terms of the agreement and the applicant dishonestly refused to pay the amount in accordance with the agreement. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the amount had to be paid by 28-8-1988 but it has been paid by 7-2-1990 and some more amount would remain outstanding by way of interest. The matter essentially relates to accounting between the parties and that dispute could be settled by the civil Court only and not in the criminal proceedings.