RAJESH AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing the RR in Kotwali (Hindpiri) P.S. Case No. 540 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 3102 of 1994 under Sections 406/420/120/34 I.P.C. against the accused petitioners.

(2.) The Opposite Party No.2, Ramesh Narayan Singh filed a complaint petition before the C.J.M. Ranchi, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 95 of 1994, but afterwards the C.J.M. forwarded the same to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C vide his order dated 16-8-1994. As per the complaint filed by the Opposite Party No.2, which has been subsequently registered as FIR. There are three sets of named accused persons. The accused persons arrayed are B Group and C Group are the petitioners in this case. In short the case of the O.P. No.2 Complainant Informant is that after retirement from H. E. C., he decided to purchase a trekker from Accused Nos. 1 to 4 who were arrayed as in the A Group (who are not the petitioners) and met for financing him in the process of hire purchase of the trekker. According to the informant, as per advise of the accused in A group, he deposited the demand draft of Rs. 81,000 in favour of B.C.L. Financial Investment Ltd. (arrayed as accused in Group B) and as per demand made by accused in Group-A, he had also produced guarantor and sureties as stood against the co m p Ia in ant.

(3.) According to the complainant, as contained in Annexure-Il of the complaint, the vehicle was made available to the complainant on 21-10-1993 after about one and half month on depositing of the demand draft, but when he wanted to know from the accused in Group-A about the financing process being made, it was found the accused in Group-C entered into the matter as the demand draft was endorsed in the name of Todi Investment.