VINOD BOHARE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking the supervisory powers of this Court under Sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision against the impugned order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 906/2008 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, whereby charge under Section 406 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.

(2.) The prosecution story, in short, is that petitioner is the Dealer of the tractors. Petitioner sold a tractor of Mahindra Company to complainant Mevalal which was also financed by the petitioner. The loan amount alongwith the interest Rs. 3,21,000/- was to be repaid, but the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- in time. Thereafter, the petitioner took the tractor from the complainant forcibly before four years with cultivator and the same has not been returned till now. It is also alleged that petitioner sold the tractor to another person and committed cheating. Complainant Mevalal Kushwah sent a complaint to Superintendent of Police, Bhind, for taking legal action against the petitioner on which enquiry was conducted by the S.O. Phooph in which it was found that no offence is made out against the petitioner and there is only some money dispute between the parties. Thereafter, complainant again made a complaint on Samadhan online on which FIR has been registered against the petitioner at Crime No. 72/08 under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhind, who in turn framed the charges against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC by order dated 5.3.2009.

(3.) It is undisputed that being aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.09, whereby charges under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC have been framed, Criminal Revision No. 227/09 was preferred and this Court by allowing the revision, directed the learned Court below to pass a reasoned order and thereafter frame the charges if required. It is also undisputed that thereafter also charges under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner. Against that order, petitioner again preferred criminal revision No. 882/11 and this Court by allowing the revision vide order dated 17.11.11 directed the Court below to comply with the order dated 17.3.2010 passed in Criminal Revision No. 227/09.