RENU W/O MOHANLAL HARISINGHANI Vs. MOHANLAL HARISINGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, in charge of 18th Court, Girgaum, Bombay dated 18-1-1990 passed below application, Exhibit-A filed by respondent No.1 -accused on 20-12-1989 wherein as per the said order the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the accused and Smt.Renu Mohanlal Harisinghani, the present petitioner is ordered to be impleaded as co-accused No.2 in Criminal Case No.1942/P/1984 and issued summons in favour of the petitioner for the offence under sections 406, 420 I.P.C. and the summons was ordered to be made returnable on 29-1-1990.

(2.) TO appreciate the contentions raised in this petition, it is necessary for this court to refer the complaint filed by the complainant against the respondent No.1 accused. The petitioner before this court is the wife of respondent No.1 - accused. As can be seen from the record complainant Shri Pravinchandra Vrajlal Doshi has filed a complaint against respondent No.1 accused Mohanlal Harisinghani before he Inspector of Police attached to D.B.Marg Police Station on 5-6-1984. The respondent-accused Mohanlal had offered the imported car for sale which stood in the name of his wife in the R.T.O. record. As the complainant was interested in purchasing the said imported car, the said deal was materialised and concluded in the office of the respondent No.1 situated at 6th floor,Naaz Cinema Building, Lamington Road, Bombay in presence of the wife of the accused i.e. the petitioner. The complainant has accordingly purchased the imported car bearing No.GRC 6789 and paid Rs.1 lakh. The possession of the car was handed over to the complainant by Mrs, Renu Mohanlal Harisinghani alongwith necessary transfer papers and documents duly signed by her to enable the complainant to register the said car in his name with R.T.O. immediately thereafter the complainant took possession of the car and submitted necessary transfer papers in favour of the R.T.O. authorities at Bombay and on scrutinising the papers the R.T.O. authority transferred registration of the said car in favour of the complainant. The accused respondent No.1 Mohanlal approached the complainant on 11-5-1989 requesting the complainant to give the said car for temporary use for two days for the purpose of some function in the family and because of the family relations, the complainant gave the car to accused No.1 in good faith. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter the complainant requested respondent No.1 accused to return his car. However, respondent No.1 has not given any response and the complainant reminded the accused every day to return his car. As the respondent accused failed and neglected to return the said car, the complaint was filed against the accused for the offence under section 420 and 406 I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing the said application, Exhibit-A filed by the respondent-accused and after narrating the facts of the prosecution and further from the cross-examination of the evidence of the complainant and from the documents viz. the letter issued by the said Renu in favour of R.T.O. for loss of R.C. book and T.C. book and the letter of transfer of car No.GRG 6789 and considering the provisions of section - 319(1) of the Cr.P.C. has allowed the application Exhibit-A filed by the respondent-accused and thereby the petitioner Renu was ordered to be impleaded as co-accused in the said case under sections-420 and 406 I.P.C.