ANIL KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order, dated 13.11.2000/14.11.2000, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj at Sasaram in Trial No. 277 of 1998. By the said order, learned Magistrate has rejected the petition for discharge filed on behalf of the petitioner.

(2.) SHORT fact of the case is that on the basis of fard-beyan of one Sri Ram Nath Pandey (Opposite Party No. 2), an F.I.R. was lodged vide Bikramganj P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 392/364 of the Indian Penal Code against four unknown accused persons. It was disclosed by the informant that he was 'Khalasi' of a truck bearing registration no. BR-20G-1801, and on 13.1.1998, while he alongwith driver was going on the aforesaid truck, one Armada Jeep came from the back side and after over taking the same stopped in front of the truck. In the said Armada Jeep, there were 3-4 accused persons. After frightening the driver, he was forced to get down from the truck and one driver from inside the Jeep came out and he took the charge of driving seat of the truck and they started to move while other accused persons sitting in the Armada Jeep started to follow the truck. After some time, the truck came out from Bikramganj market and on Nasariganj road the truck stopped near Salempur bridge. In the meanwhile, the informant anyhow got down from the truck and went to nearby village. After drinking water, he again came back. Thereafter, he noticed that truck had gone towards Nasariganj. The informant, thereafter, came to the Police Station, and on the basis of fard-beyan, Bikramganganj P.S. Case No. 73 of 1998 was registered on 13.4.1998 for the offences under Sections 392/364 of the Indian Penal Code. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet against four accused persons including the petitioner.

(3.) IN view of peculiar situation arose in the case, it was submitted by Sri Shukla that firstly by committing fraud the Opposite Party No. 3 got the loan financed for the purchase of the truck, thereafter, stopped payment, and while the truck in question was taken in custody in a legal manner, the hire purchaser got the present false case instituted and he is regularly abusing the process of the court. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was prayed to quash the impugned order as well as criminal proceeding in Trial No. 277 of 1998 so far as petitioner is concerned.