CHATUR NARAYAN RAGHUVANSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FACTS leading to the filing of the petition are as follows : A jeep, Mahendra Commander bearing registration No. 38 A/05 was seized by the police of police station Deori, District Raisen in connection with Crime No. 197/00 for the offences punishable under sections 279 and 337 of the IPC. One person impersonating himself as Gyani Prasad Son of Shri Ramratan, aged 36 years, resident of Simaria Khurd, Tahsil-Silwani, District Raisen, contacted the petitioner claiming himself to be the owner of the said jeep for getting the vehicle on supurdgi. On the instructions of aforesaid person, petitioner filed an application under section 457 of the CrPC before the competent Court of JMFC, Udaipura. The petition was signed by the said person. The petitioner filed his memo of appearance. The learned Magistrate after calling for the case diary allowed the application and directed the said jeep to be released on supurdnama of Rs. 6 lacs.

(2.) THEREAFTER one Jahur Khan, filed a complaint to the Disrtict Judge, Raisen making allegation that one Brij Bhushan impersonated himself as Gyani Prasad and obtained the said vehicle on Supurdnama. On enquiry District Judge found that Gyani Prasad is an illiterate person who puts thumb mark. This Gyani Prasad was an employee of Brij Bhushan. Brij Bhushan obtained the thumb marks of Gyani Prasad on the relevant application and other documents for grant of loan in favour of Gyani Prasad from M.P. Aadivasi Vitth Evam Vikas Nigam Raisen and received the loan amount. The amount of loan was used by Brij Bhushan for purchasing the jeep in the name of Gyani Prasad. When the vehicle was seized by the police, Brij Bhushan impersonated himself as Gyani Prasad and filed application for getting the vehicle on supurdgi. When the application was allowed, Brij Bhushan obtained the possession of the jeep by signing the supurdinama as Gyani Prasad. The imposter was identified by Godhan Singh and other persons. The learned District and Sessions Judge also found that Chatur Narain Raghuvanshi Advocate (petitioner) also abetted the commission of offence by assisting Brij Bhushan and prima facie the offence under sections 419 and 420 IPC appears to have been committed. The learned District and Sessions Judge, vide memo No. 423/Nayalaya 03 dated 22.4.2003 directed the SHO Udaipura, District-Raisen to take necessary action in the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No. 106/03 was registered against Brij Bhushan, Godhan, against one unknown person and also against the present petitioner.

(3.) HAVING perused the material on record, I find that the allegation against Brij Bhushan is that he cheated the Court by impersonation. There is not an iota of evidence against the petitioner that he was knowing the person who filed the application or he had reason to believe that person who is contacting him is not Gyani Prasad. When the person who filed the application introduced himself to be Gyani Prasad, there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt the correctness of his statement. It is not alleged against the applicant that he dishonestly induced the Court to deliver the jeep. The petitioner did not induce the Court to do or omit to do some thing which the Court would not have done or omitted if the Court was not so deceived by the petitioner. It is also not alleged against the petitioner that he dishonestly concealed any fact which may amount to deception. Filing of an application without ensuring that the person who filed the application is Gyani Prasad, does not amount to any offence. The petitioner has neither identified Gyani Prasad nor he has filed any affidavit. The facts and circumstances are not such as to exclude any reasonable hypothesis of good faith. The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating under section 415 IPC are :