SWAYAM DEEPAK AJMERA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed by original accused persons, invoking constitutional powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India with inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to challenge the judgment and order thereby dismissing the revision application No.39/2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad on 26.2.2019, whereby the order of issuing process, for the offence punishable under Sections 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 read with 34 of IPC , came to be passed against them by learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Osmanabad on 27.2.2018 in Cri.Misc. Application No.507/2018 (Now, registered as Regular Criminal Case No.105/2018).

(2.) The factual matrix, giving rise to the present petition are, that present Respondent No.2 filed the said Criminal Misc. Application for taking an action against the present petitioners, who were posed as accused. It appears that the said application was filed with a prayer to send the application for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Though, this has not been mentioned in the criminal application specifically; yet it appears that it was registered as Criminal Misc. Application and thereafter it appears that after the order of issuing process was passed on 27.2.2018, wherein an order was passed that the matter be registered as RCC, which has been so registered on 3.3.2018.

(3.) The original complainant has come with a case that accused Nos.1 and 2 run business of selling auto rickshaws under the name and style "Pratibha Auto". The complainant had met accused No.2 and made an enquiry about purchase of an auto rickshaw. At that time, it was represented to him by accused No.2 that, auto rickshaws are also available for sale on finance and only down payment would be required to be made by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant gave an amount of Rs.20,000/- as down payment. No receipt was given by accused No.2 in that respect. However, the complainant was handed over with auto rickshaw of PIAGGIO company having black and yellow colour. As he got possession of the auto rickshaw, the complainant did not ask the accused regarding the receipt therefor. It was also represented by the accused persons that they would complete the process of passing of the vehicle with Regional Transport Office (RTO). Thereafter the complainant had asked time and again to the accused to supply all the documents of the auto rickshaw. However, they were not supplied. The complainant was not called at RTO office for passing the vehicle. Whenever he had questioned the accused as to what should be done, if police intercept his auto rickshaw, it was told by the accused persons that he should tell the name of the accused persons and they will not take any action. However, the auto rickshaw was seized by the RTO office from the possession of witness No.1 on 11.7.2016. At that time, witness No.1 was not holding the documents of the auto rickshaw with him and on that count, the vehicle was seized. The complainant demanded original documents and registration document of the vehicle from the accused persons after the auto rickshaw was seized. However, the accused started giving evasive replies and sought time. The accused gave certain documents to complainant in August 2017. Those documents showed that the registration has not been done with RTO office Osmanabad. He again asked the accused as to why registration has not been done, he received again evasive replies. The complainant, on the basis of the documents supplied by the accused, made an application to RTO, Osmanabad for registration on 29.8.2017. He had paid the requisite fees. The vehicle was inspected and thereafter registration has been refused. All the documents were returned to the complainant. On the basis of refusal of the registration, when the complainant contacted the accused, they told that they have no concern with the registration of the vehicle now. The documents, which were given by the accused, showed that the auto rickshaw, which was purchased, was shown to be of white colour instead of black and yellow. The vehicle which was supplied to him was of black and yellow colour. Further, in the insurance policy also there are erasures. One policy was in hand written; whereas another was printed and both those documents are of two different insurance companies. All those documents have been fabricated in order to cheat the complainant. The chassis number of the vehicle has also been wrongly written. The complainant had purchased the said auto rickshaw to have more earnings and had appointed witness No.1 as a driver. However, he has been deprived of the said earnings since 11.7.2016 as the said vehicle has been seized by the RTO authorities due to such actions on the part of the accused. He had, therefore, prayed for taking criminal action.