PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. NARESH AUTO FINANCE CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant -Opposite party instituted Complaint Case No. 4224/2003, the case of the complainant -opposite party herein being, briefly stated, thus: The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, in the present revision, as hired and guarantor respectively, approached the complainant, who are in the business of financing the motor vehicles, to finance purchase of a Truck on the basis of hire -purchase agreement. Being induced by the representations, made by the two accused, the complainant advanced the finance and according by, a truck, as sought for by the two accused, was purchased and the same was registered as AS -01 -C -0734. The finance was made available to the accused -petitioners on the basis of a hire -purchase agreement, which was entered into by the complainant, relying on the assurances and undertakings given to the complainant by the two accused. In the certificate of registration, the name of the complainant stands registered as the financer. The loan advanced by the complainant was to be repaid in 24 installments. The accused No. 1 failed to repay any installment in time and, after making delayed payment of three installments, ceased to make any payment. When the demand for payment and also for inspection of the vehicle, in question, were raised by the complainant, both the accused refused to pay their dues and did not allow inspection of the vehicle; rather, they threatened the representative of the complainant with dire consequences. When the complainant made further inquiries, he came to learn that the accused had no business worth the name and that both the accused had made false representations of their solvent position. The accused have dishonestly moved the vehicle and has concealed the same in the premises of the petitioner No. 1 where, contrary to the terms of agreement existing between the parties, the representative of the complainant was not allowed to go and inspect.

(2.) BY orders, dated 4 -9 -2003 and 6 -9 -2003, passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Complaint Case No. 4224C/2003 aforementioned, cognisance of offences under Section 420/422/424/506/34 IPC was taken and search warrant was issued. Aggrieved by these orders, the two accused have approached this Court for setting aside the order aforementioned and also for quashing of the complaint, as a whole.

(3.) IT is not contended in the present revision petition that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence. What is contended by the accused -petitioners before this Court is that the allegations made in the complaint are false. The truth falsity and/or veracity of the accusations made in a complaint can be decided only by the Court, which is in seisin of the complaint. It is trite that a complaint, if read as a whole discloses commission of offence, such a complaint cannot be quashed unless the accusations made therein are inherently improbable or ex facie mala fide. No such case for interference could be made out by the accused -petitioner. On the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint, I have consciously refrained myself from making any observations lest it affects the out -come of the complaint. Suffice it to mention here that in the face of the contents of the complaint, no case of quashing of the complaint could be made out by the complainant.