SHAILENDRA MOHAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed seeking quashing of the first information report (hereinafter referred to as 'FIR') vide Kotwali P. S. Case No. 351 of 2016 dated 25.07.2016 instituted at the instance of the informant / opposite party no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the borrower') under Sections 420 and 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The FIR is based on a typed report submitted by the borrower to the Station House Officer, Kotwali Police Station, Patna wherein it is stated that the borrower is the registered owner of the truck bearing Registration No. BR-44-G/044 He purchased the said truck under hire-purchase agreement. He was supposed to pay the value thereof amounting to Rs. 26,41,510.00 in 44 monthly instalments. He paid 42 instalments till Jan., 2016 amounting to Rs. 25,05,804. It is further stated that on 10.03.2016, M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors has seized his truck whereafter on 29.03.2016, he met the Branch Manager and Managing Director of M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors with a sum of Rs. 1,35,706/- and requested them for release of the truck. However, they apprised him that as against the truck in question Rs. 2,80,000.00 is due, which is over and above the dues of the instalments and it is only after the dues of the instalments and overdue charges are received, the truck shall be released. Thereafter, the borrower returned home and made arrangement for the demanded money. He again approached them on 29.06.2016 with overdue charges plus dues of instalments and requested the said M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors to release the truck. However, he was sent to the office of Tata Motors Finance Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Lender Company') whereafter he approached the office of the Lender Company and explained him the entire situation. It is further stated that the Manager of the Lender Company sent him back to M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors whereafter he became disappointed and went to M/s. Shankar Maurya Motors. However, on seeing him, they got agitated and told him why he had returned. It is alleged that he again approached the Lender Company, but he was informed that the truck has already been sold and now nothing can be done.

(3.) On the basis of aforesated allegations, the borrower alleged that the accused persons cheated him in a planned manner in conspiracy with each other and dispossessed him of his truck.