U K GOEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Five petitioners, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 6.9.1996 passed by Sri B.K.Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Complaint Case No.250 of 1995. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 406, 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya vide Complaint Case No.250 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 406,403,379,411,424,426,485,467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against altogether seven persons including aforesaid five petitioners. It has been alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant had purchased a truck, bearing Registration No.BR-02A/9534 on hire purchase basis. The complainant was to pay the total amount of Rs.4,79,733/- and out of that initially the complainant paid Rs. 1,17,972 and the remaining amount of Rs.3,74,560/- was to be paid in 23 monthly instalments and accordingly an agreement was entered in between the petitioners and the Financer. It was disclosed in the complaint petition that despite the complainant was paying monthly instalments repeatedly the possession of vehicle in question was taken by the accused persons. However, it was delivered to the complainant. It was alleged that on 13.3.1994 at Chauparan in the district of Hazaribagh , while the truck in question was coming from Dehri, petitioner no.5 with the help of hired men took possession of the truck in question, which was loaded with rice and an amount of Rs.15,000/- in cash was also kept in the dash-board of the said vehicle. Thereafter, it was alleged that the complainant went to the office of petitioner nos. 3 and 4, i.e. dealer of Telco Company and thereafter a settlement was made for payment of Rs.1 Lac for the purposes of release of the vehicle and thereafter the complainant made payment of Rs.48,000/- even then the vehicle in question was not released. Subsequently, the complainant learnt that the vehicle in question was auction sold to M/S Amar Transport, who has also been arrayed as accused no.5 in the complaint petition. After filing of the complaint petition, the complainant was examined on S.A. and in support of the complaint petition, the complainant produced two witnesses at the stage of enquiry. After completing the enquiry, by order dated 6.9.1996, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Section 406, 403 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code against all the seven accused persons including the petitioners and directed for issuance of summons against accused persons for facing the trial.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the aforesaid five petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. On 21.1.1998 while issuing notice to Opp.Party no.2, this Court directed that in the meantime, further proceedings in Complaint Case No.250 of 1995 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya shall remain stayed.