RADHEYSHYAM SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 17/12/2008, passed by the Court of JMFC Kolaras District Shivpuri, taking cognizance and framing charge u/S. 379 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after is called IPC, the petitioner has filed the petition u/S.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (herein after is called Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No.1095/2007 pending against him in the aforesaid court.

(2.) In brief, facts giving rise to this petition are that, a written report, undated, was submitted by Smt. Bhagavati Bai to the S.P. Shivpuri, in connection with her tractor seized by some employees of Bank of India, Branch Shivpuri. The S.P. directed the SDOP Kolaras to inquire into the matter, by whom, after inquiry a report dated 26/07/2007 was sent to Town Inspector, P.S.Kolaras. On the basis of which F.I.R, Crime No. 209/2007, u/S. 379 of IPC, was registered against the accused at Police Station Kolaras. During Investigation, Statement of the witnesses Pooran Singh, Narendra, Bachanlal and Bhagwati Bai were recorded. The Tractor No. MP08/ D/1152 was seized on 14/07/2007 from the possession of Smt. Bhagvati Devi. After completion of investigation the chargesheet was filed against the Petitioner/Accused u/S.379 and 499, 501 of I.P.C. Vide order dated 17/12/2008, the charge under Section 379 was framed against the accused.

(3.) The Petitioner's Counsel submits that there was no evidence against the accused for framing charge u/S.379 of the IPC. If the entire evidence produced by the prosecution alongwith the chargesheet is presumed to be correct no offence is made out against the accused as in the undated written report, it has not been mentioned by the complainant that the Tractor was snatched away by the accused. More over, as per allegations of the report the tractor was snatched away by a few employees of the Bank, in which presence of the accused was not shown on the spot. Besides, the tractor was not recovered from the possession of the accused on the contrary vide seizer memo dated 14/07/2007 the tractor was seized from the possession of complainant Smt. Bhagwati Devi herself. All the same, no witness has deposed against the accused about snatching of the tractor by the accused from the possession of the Driver Bacchanlal. No Identification Parade was conduced of the accused by the witness Bacchanlal. In this way, the charge framed against the accused is not only baseless but also contrary to law. The trial is being conducted against the accused without any basis which has no meaning. The counsel further submits that the criminal trial pending against the accused is required to be quashed u/S. 482 of Cr.P.C. as it is totally an abuse of process of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on reliance of the judgment reported as State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604.