DHRUBA DAS Vs. ZAKIR HUSSAIN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) THE petitioners are the accused. The respondent -complainant alleged that the 709 TATA bus in question bearing Registration No. AS -02 -B -6427 is financed by M/s. Sri Ram Transport Finance Company and one Md. Faziuddin is the registered owner. The petitioners are said to be officers of the Finance Company. The complaint allegations discloses that the registered owner had some financial problems. Therefore, he handed over the bus to the complainant for running the same and there was also an understanding for sale of the vehicle without transfer of the Registration Certificate. But, however, a Power of Attorney was given to the complainant to take the possession and run the bus. It is said that on 24.10.2009 at 6.30 am, the complainant had stationed the bus in Nagaon Bus Stand and was permitting the passengers to board the bus. At that point of time, accused Nos. 1 -3 and the petitioners came and demanded delivery of possession of the bus. When the complainant refused, the accused persons boarded the bus and started the bus with a duplicate key. The passengers fled away. The accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences and took signatures on blank papers and forms. The complainant informed the matter to the registered owner. However, the accused persons took the vehicle with them. The complainant went and informed the Nagaon Police. The Nagaon police did not take any action. Hence, a private complaint is filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 341/406/384/506/352 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

(3.) THE contents of the sworn statements if juxtaposed with the allegations made in the complaint, there appears to be great variance and discrepancy in the events that have been spoken to in the complaint and stated in the sworn statement. The complainant along with the complaint has also filed a Hire -Purchase Agreement and other documents relating to the contract between the financer and the registered owner. In the context of the facts and material, it becomes evident that the allegations of extortion and criminal intimidation are not substantially corroborated. On the other hand, the transactions appear to be purely of civil nature.