NASROOLA KHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by petitioner accused for quashment of the impugned order dated 24.10.2005 passed in Criminal Case No.49 of 2002 whereby the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 420, 422, 406 and 406/109, 422/ 109 and 411 of the Penal Code, which was confirmed in Criminal Revision No.183 of 2005 vide order dated 17.2.2006, preferred by petitioner accused.

(2.) ONE private complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 for taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 120B, 403, 406 and 420 of the Penal Code on the ground that a bus bearing registration No. MBG -8282 was purchased by the petitioner accused No.1 on the basis of hire purchase agreement entered into between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 after obtaining Rs.1,60,000/ - which was to be paid in 36 equal instalments. Thereafter, an additional amount of Rs.2.00 Lacs has also been obtained by petitioner on 13th August, 1992 for which another agreement was executed. It has been averred in the complaint that 13 instalments were paid by the petitioner and thereafter stopped the payment of instalments. Thus, the agreed amount has become overdue with interest etc. It has also been averred that petitioner had sold the financed bus alongwith the permit to someone else and thus deceived the complainant respondent and committed an offence of cheating. It has also been averred that from the very beginning the intention of the petitioner at the time of entering into an agreement was to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to themselves and thus they committed the alleged offence as aforesaid.

(3.) AFTER making appearance, petitioners have filed an application under sections 245 and 246 of the Code for discharging them on the ground that the alleged transaction of hire purchase entered into between the party was purely of civil nature and no offence have been committed by them. The said application was dismissed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 24.8.2005. This order was challenged by filing revision before the ASJ Mandleshwar, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.2.2006.