RAKESH JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed assailing the order dt.19.02.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge (M.P.D.V.P.K.Act, 1981) and Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, M.P. in S.T.No.03/2019, whereby the charges have been framed against the petitioner under Section 412 of IPC and Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K.Act, 1981.

(2.) Prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant Satendra Singh was travelling alongwith his wife on 29.04.2018. When the train departed, some unknown person ran alongwith the train and snatched the handbag containing Rs.15,000/- in cash, golden earring, one mobile of MI company and one ATM card. A crime was registered at Crime No.411/2018 under Section 392 of IPC by P.S. GRP Jhansi and the matter was referred for investigation of GRP (BG), P.S. Gwalior. The case was re-registered at Crime No.156/2018 and after investigation, challan has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a cloth merchant having a shop in Mor Bazar Gwalior. In his shop there are seven servants working. For the purpose of enhancement of business, the petitioner had distributed the SIM card to two servants namely Kuldeep and Mukesh and the mobile in question was being used by Kuldeep Singh alongwith the SIM provided by the applicant. The incident took place on 02.08.2018 and thereafter police came at the shop and arrested the petitioner without disclosing any fact. The petitioner came to know the fact that he was arrested since he had purchased the stolen mobile from Suraj, to whom Kuldeep had brought to the shop. The petitioner did not have the knowledge that mobile which he had purchased is stolen, as such, at the most, offence under Section 411 of IPC may be made out. It is further submitted that ingredients of Section 412 of IPC are not made out against the petitioner, as the petitioner was not involved in commissioning of the dacoity. He has only purchased the mobile for consideration of Rs.3,000/- from Suraj and he did not know it was a stolen mobile. The employee of the petitioner is the neighbour of the accused Suraj, therefore, he had brought Suraj to the shop.