KAMRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through video conferencing.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, complainant Tabrej lodged an FIR disclosing the commission of offence that in order to save his vehicle from attachment by a finance company he parked his truck on 19/4/2019 in the campus of Ratan Filling Station. The truck remained there upto 24/4/2019. Thereafter he enquired about the truck from Sameer and they made a search but did not find the truck. According to the complainant he was under the impression that the finance company has taken his truck. On 28/4/2019 accused Sikandar (M.Cr.C.No. 53438/2020) informed that he saw his vehicle going towards Mahidpur and contact Bhola @ Hanif, he will disclose about the truck. Thereafter the complainant, Mohsin and Shakeel went to Mahidpur and met with Bhola @ Hanif and searched the vehicle. On 30/4/2019 they came to know that the said truck is parked in the premises of Mahidpur Police Station and thereafter on 5/2/2019 they went to the Police Station Mahidpur and found the truck. Thereafter an FIR was lodged at Crime No. 269/2019 against unknown persons about theft of the vehicle. Thereafter police has arrested the present applicants.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicants have been implicated falsely, nothing have been recovered from them. It appears that complainant Tabrej in order to safe his truck from attachment by the Insurance Company has cooked up the story of theft. There is no investigation as to how the truck came to the Police Station Mahidpur and the truck has not been recovered from any of the applicant. So far as accused Kamruddin is concerned, it is submitted that he has been made accused on the basis of memo u/S. 27 of the Evidence Act that he as about to purchase the truck for further sale.