RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed seeking quashing of the orders dated 9.9.2009 (P2) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur and 20.9.2005 (P1) passed by the learned JMIC Hoshiarpur, whereby the accused (respondent-2) has been discharged for the offence under Section 379 IPC. A further prayer is made for framing charges against accusedrespondent- 2 after setting aside the orders - P1 and P2.

(2.) The petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent-2 for the offence under Section 379 IPC. It was alleged that the petitioner is running M/s Punjab Feed Bhandar and M/s Punjab Khad Store, Dabidda Ahrana and is a licensed dealer of insecticides and also a Commission Agent. Respondent-2 was an employee of M/s Sibia Feed, Ludhiana. On 1.6.1998, respondent-2 was deputed by M/s Sibia Feed, Ludhiana to collect its payment from the petitioner after returning the cheque. Respondent-2 came to the petitioner on 1.6.1998 and demanded payment pertaining to the company. The complainant-petitioner gave him a cheque amounting to Rs 16150/- and made a cash payment of Rs 1100/- to him. The accusedresponent- 2 was sent back to the complainant-petitioner with the request to return the abovesaid cheque and bring cash from the petitioner. The accused-respondent-2 came to the petitioner and mentioned the intention of his employer and handed-over the cheque and a Ruqa. The complainantpetitioner requested accused-respondent-2 to come on 2.6.1998 and he would make the payment on that day as the cheque would be cleared from the Bank. The complainant-petitioner reached the shop at 10 a.m. on 2.6.1998 where accused-respondent-2 was already present. The petitioner requested the accused to take the cheque and get it encashed from the Bank and take the payment but the accused insisted that the petitioner should accompany him to the Bank and get the cheque encashed himself. The complainant and respondent-2 came to State Bank of India, Court Road, Hoshiarpur, on the scooter of the complainant at about 12 Noon. The complainant-petitioner withdrew cash amounting to Rs 90,000/- from the Bank account No.20646 in the presence of accused-respondent-2 and came out of the Bank. The complainant took out Rs 10,000/- out of the total cash of Rs 90,000/- and handed over the same to respondent-2 in the presence of one Vipin Kumar Jain. The remaining cash of Rs 80,000/- was placed in the Dicky of the scooter in the presence of respondent-2 and Vipin Kumar Jain aforesaid. Respondent-2 then requested the petitioner to drop him at the Bus Stand, Hoshiarpur as he wanted to go to Ludhiana immediately. The petitioner agreed and leaving Vipin Kumar Jain there, the petitioner and respondent-2 went to Bus Stand. After dropping respondent-2 at the Bus Stand, the petitioner went to Prabhat Chowk. There the petitioner parked his scooter in front of the Varandah of the Punjab Agro Industries where Malkeet Singh and DP Singh were sitting in the Varandhah and were watching the petitioner. When the petitioner opened the Dicky which was not intact, rather was somewhat defective and he found the cash amounting to Rs 80,000/- missing. The complainant-petitioner then went to Bus Stand to locate respondent-2. It is alleged that only respondent-2 had sat on the pillion of the scooter on the way to Bus Stand. The complainant-petitioner did not stop the scooter on the way. The respondent-2 was seen sitting on the pillion by Vipin Kumar Jain and was seen alighted from the scooter by Avtar Singh and Nirmal Singh. Thereafter, the complainant-petitioner went on contacting accused-respondent-2 but he could not reach Ludhiana upto 7 p.m. on 2.6.1998. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Police but the Police did not register a case and on giving an affidavit, the Police lodged case FIR 105 dated 7.6.1998 at PS City Ludhiana for the offence under Section 379 IPC. The Police neither interrogated the accused nor recorded statement of any witness and the case was sent up as untraced by the Police. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a complaint in which the impugned orders P1 and P2 have been passed.

(3.) The complainant in pre-charge evidence, examined 7 witnesses including himself as PW7. On the basis of the evidence and material on record, the learned JMIC vide order dated 20.9.2005 dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 9.9.2009 (P2). Aggrieved against the said order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the orders P1 and P2.