KOMAL CHAND KACHHAWAHA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 15th of April, 2000, passed by Special Judge [under Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989], Mandla, in Special Case No. 21/2000 framing charges under sections 420 and 506 11 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth 'the Act').

(2.) THE facts of this case are that the complainant Smt. Sona Bai belong to Scheduled Castes. She had made a report to the Superintendent of Police, Mandla to the effect that she had purchased from the applicant an old Mini Bus, registered as MIK 1457 for a consideration of Rs. 1,68, 800/ . It was stated that out of the aforesaid amount Rs. 1,23,000/ were paid by her to the applicant on the date of purchase of the vehicle and the rest of the amount of Rs. 45,800/ were to be paid in eight instalments which were spread over between the period 5.1.97 to 5.8.97. It was further alleged by the complainant that balance of Rs. 45,800/ have already been paid by her but she was not in possession of any receipt showing the payment of that amount. In effect, the complainant claimed that she became the title holder of the vehicle after full payment of price of mini bus to the applicant. Despite that, the applicant Komal Chand Kachhawaha with a view to cheat the complainant took the vehicle on lease at the rate of Rs. 250/ per day for a period of one month and, thereafter, neither he returned the vehicle nor paid its rent to the complainant, and kept the vehicle with him with mala fide intention. The applicant wanted to take away the vehicle, in question, and, therefore, he committed an offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Alongwith the application submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Mandla, by the complainant, she had annexed a receipt of Rs. 1,23,000/ showing that she had paid this amount to the applicant.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the applicant has placed reply to the notice on record which is Annexure A 6. The allegations made against the applicant in the notice have been denied by him. It was denied that he received any amount from the complainant, after January, 1997. It was claimed by the applicant that it was agreed between him and the complainant that in case, the instalments are not paid by her regularly, then the applicant had a right to take back the vehicle from the possession of the complainant and, therefore, the applicant had taken away the vehicle which was never leased to him, as claimed by the complainant in her notice. Apparently, the complainant's main case is under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is clear from the written report. The complainant had not mentioned in the written report that any kind of threat was administered to her by the applicant. It is subsequently, when she made a statement before the police, she came out with the story that owing to the dispute regarding the vehicle, in question, she was also threatened and was abused.