TULA DAS SHAH AND ORS. Vs. RATANLAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed against the three Petitioners under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. After going through the materials on record, the learned trial Court, however, framed charge only under Section 420 against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and discharged Petitioner No. 3. None the less all the three accused persons have approached this Court for quashing the proceeding. It may be stated that against the order of discharge of Petitioner No. 3, a revision, has been preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, as stated by Shri Sen, which is said to be pending.

(2.) AS the approach to this Court is under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it may be stated at the outset that the inherent power has to be invoked where the Courts is satisfied that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Court or where it thinks that interest of justice demands that the proceedings be quashed. This power is invoked when, on the facts alleged, the Court is satisfied that no case is made out. Let it, therefore, be seen if a prima facie case under Section 420 has been made out or not against Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The brand fact which has given rise to this prosecution is that according to the complainant the three Petitioner approached him for adverting a sum of Rs. 30,000/ - as loan. This was on 15.1.81. Through he was hesitant and was (sic) he was prevailed upon (sic) by saying that Truck (sic) AST 3081 which really belongs to the three Petitioners but is registered in the name of Petitioner 3, would be given as a security. The complainant then advanced the sum of Rs. 30,000/ -. An approach was again made on 18.3.81, and this time to advance a sum of Rs. 40.000/ -. The initial hesitation of the complainant was over -come, this time by saying that the truck would stand sold to him against the total consideration of Rs. 70,000/ -. Petitioner No. 2 gave a receipt for the amount and also drafted a letter to effect transfer of the truck in the name of the complainant. The transfer was, however, refused by the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh, as the truck was registered in the name of Petitioner No. 3 alone. The further allegation is that on 25.3.81, the accused persons took away the truck from the control of the complainant. On the matter being taken up with the accused -persons. they said that they would either deliver the truck or refund a sum of Rs. 70,000/ -, which was not done. In support of its case, the complainant examined some witnesses and on going through the same and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court framed charges as stated above and discharged Petitioner No. 3.

(3.) IN the result, the prayer for quashing the proceeding is rejected and the petition is dismissed.