SUBASH CHANDRA BETALA Vs. DWIJEN CHANDRA KALITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 4-1-1988 the Opposite party filed a complaint petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Gauhati against the proprietor of M/s. Sweta Auto Agency and 4 other unnamed persons under S.329/506/34 IPC. In the petition it was inter alia alleged that on 30-12-1987 proprietor of the M/s. Sweta Auto Agency along with 4 other persons demanded the keys of the vehicle No. AMZ-7881 from the Handyman of the vehicle and on his pleading of ignorance about the keys, the above person broke open the box of the vehicle where keys and money were kept and forcibly took away the vehicle. The learned Trial Court by orders dt. 4-1-1988 and 18-1-1988 issued summons under S.379 I.P.C. against the accused persons and also a search warrant for recovery of the vehicle. Police seized the vehicle and released it in favour of the complainant, Opposite party herein. Being aggrieved, the petitioner who is the owner of the M/s. Sweta Auto Agency has filed the present petition for quashing the Criminal Proceeding No. 2C of 1988 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Guahati and which was registered on the basis of the above complaint petition. The petitioner has further prayed also for quashing the orders by a separate petition which has been registered as Misc. Case and prayed for a direction to the Police to take back the Vehicle from the Opposite Party herein and gives it to the 'jimma' of the present petitioner.

(2.) In the petition main ground taken is that the vehicle in question was given on hire to the Opposite party on an agreement being executed between the parties. The said agreement is at Annexure-1. According to the Petitioner the Opposite party was to pay the entire amount in 35 monthly installments @ Rs. 5000/- and odd and the Opposite party hopelessly and miserably failed to pay the amount timely and after paying 14 installments after about a year of becoming due completely stopped payment of installments. It has been stated in the petition that as the Opposite party failed to pay the amount as per Cl.5 of the Agreement, the petitioner took the vehicle into his custody and this fact was duly intimated to the opposite party and the police. It has been stated that by suppressing the fact in the complaint petition (Annexure IV to the petition) that the vehicle was taken on hire, the opposite party got the vehicle seized by the police. Hence the present petition for quashing the proceeding by invoking inherent powers of this Court under S.482 Cr. P.C.

(3.) A preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the opposite party that the petitioner has no locus standi as he was not the accused in the Criminal proceeding. In the complaint petition one Gouri Sankar Jalan has been shown as a proprietor of the M/s. Sweta Auto Agency whereas the present petitioner Subash Ch. Betala has described himself as a proprietor of the Sweta Agency. From the reading of the complaint petition it is clear that the complaint was filed against the proprietor of the Sweta Auto Agency. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the present petitioner is the owner of the Sweta Auto Agency and not Gouri Sankar Jalan, who is only a landlord of the present petitioner. It is clear from the complaint petition that accused was the proprietor of the said Auto Agency and as the present petitioner is the proprietor, the said complaint petition was directed against him and as such he has locus standi to file the present petition.