RAVI SHARMA Vs. SANJEEV RAGHUVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. - This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C,, 1973 has been filed, to exercise the inherent powers and to set aside the order dated 12.09.2016, passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, in Cr.R. No. 320/2015, wherein the cognizance taken against petitioner Ravi Sharma by JMFC vide order dated 22.08.2015 in Criminal Case No. 5396/2016 for offences under Sections 294, 342, 452 and 506 Part-II of the IPC has been affirmed.

(2.) The petitioner pleaded that the petitioner Ravi Sharma is serving in a Non-Banking Financial Company, known as A.U. Financiers India Ltd. The company provides finance facility to the persons interested under loan agreement and impose charges on the amount financed. The Respondent No. 1 Sanjeev Raghuwanshi applied for financial assistance for the purchase of a TATA Ace vehicle (Popularly called as Chhota Hathi), bearing Registration No. M.P.20LA/1039, on the basis of a loan agreement dated 08.09.2012, executed by the respondent No. 1. He borrowed loan of Rs. 1,90,000/- subjected to repay by installments of Rs. 7758/- per month for a period of 34 months. The respondent No. 1 executed certain documents and surety of Nagesh. But, the respondent No. 1 failed to deposit the installments. He paid five installments and became a chronic defaulter. From time to time, the respondent No. 1 was reminded to clear the outstandings, but all the efforts of the financial company were in vain. When the executives of the company tried to visit the respondent No. 1 and efforts were made to recover the installments, respondent No. 1 hurled abuses and threatened the company officials to implicate them in the charges under the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act, 1989. A written complaint was by the petitioner's company made to the Superintendent of Police on 24.12.2013, (Annexure -P/4). In the application for loan (Annexure-P/2), the respondent No. 1 and his surety Nagesh declared themselves to be in the category of general caste. The arrears of account statement (Annexure P/3) indicates Rs. 1,01,255/- is yet to be paid. Subsequently, he executed (Annexure-P/5), a letter of surrender of the vehicle and (Annexure P/6) a letter from the borrower. (Annexure P/7) is the receipt, issued by Sunny Motors to whom the vehicle was handed-over on 24.12.2013. (Annexure P/8) the inventory was issued by the Sunny Motors. Annexure P/9 is the registered notice issued to the petitioner's company, whereby on 24.12.2013, the borrower respondent Sanjeev Raghuwanshi was asked to deposit installments as per the agreement, failing which necessary legal action would be taken against him for which he will remain responsible.

(3.) Similar letter by registered post was again sent on 13.12.2013, which is Annexue-P/10. Respondnt No. 1 Sanjeev Raghuvanshi filed a written complaint before the Police Station AJK, Omti Jabalpur, on 26.12.2013. Copy of the complaint is Annexue P/11, in which respondent No. 1 alleged that the vehicle MP 20LA/1039, a loading vehicle (Chhota Hathi) was purchased from TATA OK Commercial Mahanadda by finance. Allegation has been levelled about the vehicle that the same is not functioning properly and the respondent filed a complaint case before the Consumer Forum as regarding the defects in the vehicle.