SURAJ BALLI TEWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (shortly, the Code) the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the ivestigation pending against them.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : on 27.3.95 a complaint was filed by one Moinuddin of Village Khairgaon, P.S. Sadar, district, Hazaribagh against the petitioners alleging, inter alia,' that on 23.3.95 when he was driving truck No. BR 13-G 5547 with a cash of Rs. 2,5000/- to purchase coal from the colliery, petitioner No. l (accused No. l) along with 5-6 unknown persons armed with rivolver got the vehicle stopped. The driver was asked to vacate the driving seat by showing rivolver with a threat to shoot him if the vehicle with its key including the papers and cash are not handed over to petitioner No. 1,. Surujballi Tiwary. The complainant, out of fear, handed over the key of the vehicle to petitioner No. 1 and then petitioner No. l got a letter written by one Mangal Pandey at the point of rivolver who was there at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, one of the accused persons sat on the driving seat and searched the box and took out the said sum of Rs. 25,000/- which was given to the accused No. 1. After that they all drove the vehicle away. It is further stated that on perusal of the letter the name of petitioner No. 1 was learnt who is an agent of petitioners 2 and 3 (Accused 2 and 3). The complaint petition further disclosed that the owner of the vehicle was one Ajay Kumar Gupta son of Sarju Prasad of Boddam Baja, Hazaribagh who had already cleared off all the dues of the Financer. The complaint petition also discloses about some orders of Civil Court at Calcutta regarding which the complaint has stated that if there had been any order of the Civil Court, the execution proceeding through the process of the civil court could have been taken but in the instant case the accused persons have looted away the vehicle and cash at the point of rivolver and thereby committed serious offence. The complainant had gone to the police station but as except some constables, no police officer was available in the police station, the complaint petition was filed in the court. On such complaint being filed, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police to make investigation and, as such G.R. Case No. 552/95 corresponding to Sadar Hazaribagh P.S Case No. 109 (4) 95 was registered by the police.

(3.) Mr. Pradeep Ghosh, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the complaint petition itself will show that it is not only mala fide but has been filed with an oblique motive. He contends that the owner of the truck, Ajay Kumar Gupta is the hirer of which petitioner No. 3, Dulichand Finance & leasing (P) Ltd. is a Financer. There was hire purchase agreement on the basis of which said Ajay Kumar Gupta purchased the truck but, it is said, did not respect the terms and conditions of the agreement by depositing the instalments in time. There was some dispute which was referred to the Arbitrator and the award went in favour of petitioner No. 3. The said award was filed in the city civil court at Calcutta and on the prayer made by the Financer, by order dated 20.9.94, the Chief Judge of the City Civil Court, Calcutta appointed Sri Sheonath Bhattacharya, an advocate of court as a receiver was at liberty to appoint an agent for the purpose of taking possession of the vehicle. On such liberty being given, said Sri Bhattacharya appointed petitioner No. l, Surujballi Tiwary as his agent and directed him to get the possession of the vehicle. Mr. Ghosh further submits that petitioner No. l, in the capacity of agent of the receiver, tried to locate the vehicle and ultimately got possession of the same from one Mangal Pandey at Mugalsarai on 23.3.95. He further submits that in taken of delivery of possession, said Mangal Pandey gave a letter in which the name of Ajay Kumar Gupta has been mentioned as hirer. It is contended that under the aforesaid circumstances the vehicle was taken into possession by the receiver as ordered by the City Civil Court, Calcutta. Continuing his argument Mr. Ghosh says that as because Ajay Kumar Gupta failed to get any relief from the Arbitrator and as such in order to implicate not only the agent, the petitioner No. l, has ropped petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 also in a false case. He submits that from a bare perusal of the complaint petition it would be clear that the complainant, Moinuddin is nothing but a set up person of said Ajay Kumar Gupta. So far petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, according to him, there is no allegation which can make out a case against them except that the accused No. 1 is the agent of accused Nos. 2 and 3. i.e. the petitioners 2 and 3. So far petitioner No. l (accused No. l) is concerned, Mr. Ghosh submits that he being the agent appointed on the basis of the order of the competent civil court, he has only done his duty by getting the possession of the vehicle and, as such, it cannot be said that he has committed any offence, as alleged.