DEVCHAND MANJI BHEEL Vs. KUTUB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 3.1.2004 passed by IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratlam in Criminal Revision No. 165/2003 whereby the learned AS J has quashed the order of issuance of process by the learned JMFC, Sailana dated 10.10.2003 against non-applicants No. 1, 2 and 4 in Criminal Case No. 576/2003 for the offences U/Ss. 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.

(2.) THE case of the applicant in the complaint before the trial Court was that father of complainant late Manji had purchased a tractor after raising loan from State Bank of India, non-applicant No. 4 and the tractor was pledged with the bank. Thereafter, the said tractor was taken into custody by non-applicants No. 1 and 2 after preparing forged documents in their favour on which they had also compelled to his father Manji to put thumb impression and after the death of Manji, when the applicant demanded the tractor back, the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 refused to return the tractor and committed breach of trust because the tractor was given on Rs. 100/-per day rent to non-applicants No. 1 and 2. The learned trial Court issued process U/s. 204 of CrPC for the above mentioned offences. The learned Magistrate also called the police report. Police had sent the report that no criminal case is made out against the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 and dispute between the parties is a dispute of civil nature. Against the issuance of process, the non-applicant No. 1 and 2 went up in revision and the revisional Court set aside, the order holding that even if the complete version of the complainant is accepted, no criminal case is made out against the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 because for commission of forgery and taking of thumb impression of father of the complainant, late Manji, no documentary evidence has been filed by the complainant/applicant. The complainant sent a legal notice to the non-applicants No. 1 and 2, in reply to that non-applicants have asked him to take the tractor back after paying the loan amount. According to the non-applicants No. 1 and 2, father of the complainant, named Manji raised some loan from them. In view of the reply sent by the non-applicants herein this revision, learned revisional Court has held that neither the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 had claimed the title over the tractor nor they intended to misappropriate the same.

(3.) IN this view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order passed by the revisional Court. Therefore, the present revision against the impugned order is hereby dismissed.