SANTOSH KUMAR MALAKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashment of the FIR bearing No.189/2023 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Civil Line, Dewas under Sec. 406 of IPC and subsequent proceedings pending before the CJM, Dewas in RCT no.2211/2023.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, a written complainant was filed by the complainant Pramit Dheriya who is reader of CJM, Dewas on 21/4/2023 by submitting that the petitioner was given a tractor and chassis on supurdagi by learned trial Court and vide notice dtd. 20/12/2022, he was directed to produce the same before the court on 21/12/2022, but the petitioner has not produce the same before the executing Court, hence, on the basis of the complainant, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sec. 406 of IPC.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present crime. It is further submitted that bare reading of the FIR itself is clearly showing that non producing of the tractor and Chassis before the trail Court is just a default and non compliance of the order of of trial court, but such filing of complainant and registration of the FIR on the said complaint under the provision of Sec. 406 of IPC is against the settled provisions of law. If one, the tractor and chassis is not produced, not further opportunity is given only the notice was issued on 20/12/2022 and on 21/12/2022 it was directed to be produced before the Court without giving no further time in this matter. The notice issued to the petitioner is also not served upon the petitioner properly. Therefore, the trial Court should ought to have given time to the petitioner either by issuing any warrants of other modes, but registration of FIR directly is abuse of process of law. The applicant neither committed any breach of trust with the Court nor committed any act to sale or misappropriated the property taken from the Court on supurdagi and the act of default and the act of breach of trust is prima facie differentiate while reading the FIR. It is also the contention of counsel or the petitioner that the petitioner is Govt. Servant and prior to registration of the FIR, the prosecution has not taken any Sanction of the Government. Hence, prays for quashment of the FIR as well as subsequent proceedings pending before the trial Court.