MADAN LAL JAIN Vs. SRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, CrPC by the accused of a case pending against them under Section 379, IPC in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi in a complaint case No. 38 of 1976 No. 189 of 1976.

(2.) THE allegations made by the applicants are that a complaint was filed by the opposite party against them for committing an offence under Section 379, IPC. It was alleged that he (opposite party) is dealer of foodgrains and oil seeds in Galla Mandi of town Sandila district Hardoi. About eight days prior to the date on which the complaint was Sled, i.e. 22-6-76, the applicant No. 1 had sent a letter to him that he was coming for purchase of oil seeds and f ood grains and these applicants reached there in the evening of 19th June, 1976 and stayed at the shop in the night. THEy stayed in the shop next day also and (refused) to give orders after contacting their companions on phone. THE applicants were said to have stayed alone in the shop. Next morning on 21- 6-76 at about 8.00 A. M , the opposite party reached the shop and then he found that the lock of the cash box (Golak) was broken and Rs. 500/- and one golden chain weighing about 2 1/2 tolas were missing from that place. He immediately went in search of the applicants and when he was going towards the station, he learnt from witnesses that they had seen them going towards the station at about 5 30 A. M. However, they were not found at the station as the train had already left.

(3.) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party. Learned counsel for the opposite party merely contends that normally there is no reason to interfere by this extra ordinary remedy available under Section 482, CrPC. I need not enter into the allegation of the applicants that the complaint filed by the opposite party is motivated by Ram Narain in the interest of the firm through his Tahsildar brother. But the case can be disposed of on account of the other contention raised by the applicants. Section 482, CrPC is applicable to such cases where a criminal proceeding is being pushed by way of abuse of the process of law. In the present case that contingency exists. Even if the allegations made by the opposite party in the complaint are accepted on their face value, no offence under Section 379, IPC can be said to have been made out.