RAHUL WADHAWAN Vs. RAMANUJ BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Navendu Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and Mr.Matloob Rub, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioners, while invoking jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have prayed for quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 479 of 2006 corresponding to T.R. No. 278 of 2006 including the order dated 30.5.2006 passed in the aforesaid case by Mr. D.S.Srivastava, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya by which finding a prima facie case to be made out under sections 418 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code the petitioners and one another have been summoned for trial.

(2.) The prosecution has been launched on the basis of a complaint instituted by the opposite party no. 1 Ramanuj Bharti, who has alleged that since he desired to purchase a truck, the co-accused Satbir Singh, who was engaged in transport business, approached him at Gaya and offered his truck bearing registration no. HR-38J-2300 for sale in his favour to which he immediately agreed. It was agreed between them that the remaining installments due to be paid to the financer for re-paying the loan shall be paid by the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in his name. In pursuance to the agreement with co-accused Satbir Singh, the complainant paid Rs. 3,34,500/- (three lakh thirty four thousand five hundred) to Satbir Singh in between 10.2.2005 to 21.7.2005 by way of debit voucher and freight payment memos. Despite the payments made by the complainant, co-accused Satbir Singh neither handed over the vehicle to him nor returned back the amount and, thus, the complainant filed a money suit on 12.8.2005 in the court of Principal Sub.Judge, Gaya against co-accused Satbir Singh which was numbered as Money suit No. 13 of 2005.

(3.) It has further been alleged by the complainant that in the meantime on 17.9.2005 legal notices were sent to M/s GE Capital Transportation Financial Services Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as "the company') disclosing that all the payments made by Satbir Singh were as a matter of fact made by the complainant. In the meantime, the aforesaid truck was seized by the company and kept in the yard of the company at Bodh Gaya. On 18.11.2005 an agreement was entered into between the complainant and the co-accused Satbir Singh by which it was agreed that the truck in question would be handed over to the complainant-opposite party no. 1 and, accordingly, a power of attorney was executed by Satbir Singh in favour of the complainant to possess the vehicle and ply the same. Subsequently, taking into notice the duly executed power of attorney, petitioner no. 3, namely, Umesh Arora gave no objection certificate and directed his agent Mr. Tripathi to release the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant and Mr. Tripathi in pursuance of the direction given by petitioner no. 3 handed over the vehicle to the complainant-opposite party no. 1on 5.1.2006 on the condition that the complainant would pay the due installments directly in favour of the company. The complainant has also alleged that several post dated cheques of HDFC Bank, New Delhi, each amounting to Rs. 18,609/- issued under the signature of the complainant were handed over to petitioner no. 3 Umesh Arora. The post dated cheques were for the period commencing from January 2006 to January 2008. However, on 21.3.2006 when the vehicle in question was carrying consignment of coal from Jharia to Bulandsahar the same was intercepted by Pankaj Motors, Agra and without assigning any reason the said vehicle was detained at the yard of the company in question. The complainant thereafter approached co-accused Satbir Singh and petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who are officers of the company but the vehicle was not released in his favour. The petitioners, on enquiry, replied that there are outstanding dues against the vehicle in question and that is why the same has been detained. The complainant has, thus, alleged that besides payment of altogether Rs. 3,34,500/- to co-accused Satbir Singh he had paid Rs. 59,447/- to the company in question on 19.12.2005. He has also stated that besides the aforesaid payment some other payments were also made to Mr.Tripathi, an agent of the company. The complainant (opposite party no. 1) claims that the accused persons fraudulently and dishonestly committed breach of trust by accepting payments from him and subsequently depriving him from custody of the vehicle.