DINESH PARASHAR Vs. SMT. MITHILA DEVI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ARGUMENTS heard. Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 21st March, 2012 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 248/2010 dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15th March, 2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabra, District Gwalior in Criminal Case No. 219/2010 taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 423 IPC.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 and submitted that complainant Shrimati Mithila has filed the complaint on the ground that her tractor trolley was taken on hire by the accused persons including one Hitendra Pratap Singh who is the son -in -law of the complainant. When the accused did not return back the tractor trolley nor paid the rental of Rs. 12,000/ - she has filed the present complaint. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated as he is a friend of accused Hitendra Pratap Singh. It is further submitted by him that the dispute is of civil nature for breach of terms of contract of hire and civil suit should have been filed by the complainant.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, in support of his case has placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Hotline Teletubes and Components Ltd and ors vs. State of Bihar,, 2005 SCC (Cri) 1515 in which it has been held that when at very inception of the contract between the parties there was no intention to cheat, offence under section 406 and 420 IPC is not made out and the case is purely of civil liability; non -quashing the prosecution of the accused would amount to an abuse of process of court, therefore, the prosecution is liable to be quashed under section 482Cr.P.C. Another judgment in the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others vs. State of Bihar, : 2002 SCC (Cri) 129has also been relied by the counsel for the petitioner on the same point.