KHUSHI RAM YADAV Vs. RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 05.01.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mahendergarh, whereby complaint under Section 217, 218, 379, 380, 403, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) was dismissed, complainant has approached this Court by way of instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), for seeking leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned trial Court in paras 2 to 4 of the impugned judgment, are that the complainant is resident of Village Marla Sarai. In FIR No.84 dated 22.03.2008 under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station Kanina, complainant and his family members were detained in judicial custody. In absence of complainant vehicle bearing No.RJ 27G-2647 LPT-1612, which was driven by his brother Hawa Singh. Above mentioned vehicle was hired by Gairin Career and Contracts, Delhi Private Ltd., Gurgaon. Present accused persons committed a theft of above mentioned vehicle in absence of complainant. All documents of vehicle were also taken by the accused persons. Accused persons also demanded bribe from complainant for giving benefit to him under case registered against him under Section 302/34 IPC. Complainant refused to do so, therefore, accused persons had committed theft of complainant's vehicle. Accused persons had committed theft of vehicle after one month of detention of complainant in judicial custody. Therefore, they had committed offence under Section 217, 218, 379, 380, 403 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC. A notice dated 30.09.2008 was sent by complainant to accused persons. Hence, the present complaint.

(3.) In preliminary evidence, complainant had examined CW1 Raj Kumar, CW2 Hawa Singh, CW3 Bhupender and CW4 Khushi Ram complainant himself. Thereafter, the complainant had closed the preliminary evidence.