LAWS(J&K)-1997-12-13

MOHAMMAD IQBAL LATOO Vs. MOHAMMAD RAMZAN BHAT

Decided On December 03, 1997
MOHAMMAD IQBAL LATOO Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMAD RAMZAN BHAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- It seems that Mr. Rather has not given full particulars of respondent No. 2 and claims that respondent No. 2 is Division Officer, Police Post New Theed Harwan, Srinagar. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that the respondent No. 1 who has lodged the complaint in the matter and is said to have moved the criminal Court by filing a complaint under S. 379, RPC, regarding transaction of a truck bearing registration No. JKB-4485 way back on 19-8-1987, having been purchased from the owner against payment and certain more payments were yet to be recovered. However, he having lodged the criminal complaint of having snatched the vehicle from him and the matter was taken cognizance of and same was sent to respondent No. 2 for investigation under S. 202, Cr. P.C. The respondent No. 2 having started investigation in the matter has seized the truck and has recorded statements of witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P.C. As per report of the police, the complaint of the complainant is substantiated.

(2.) It is stated that truck No. 4485 JKB has been sold by one Mohammad Iqbal Latoo, petitioner before me to respondent No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 73,000/- and at the time of transaction, respondent No. 1 only paid Rs. 24,000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid subsequently. The person of the complainant is said to have moved the complaint before the Court asking that the person of the petitioner before me had taken law into his own hands and taken away the truck during night hours for which he had lodged a complaint before a regular Court.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Rather is that the matter being of civil one, the liability arising out of transaction is civil one and the action through criminal Court should not have been resorted to. Mr. Rather forgets to understand himself that it is he who has taken law into his own hands. Instead of asking the remaining amount of Rs. 24,000/- from the complainant who had purchased the truck and the possession of the same was delivered to him along with the documents. He instead of asking him to pay the remaining amount has taken away the truck from his possession before the complaint was lodged and after filing the complaint, the Magistrate had deferred taking of cognizance in the matter and referred the same to Division Officer, Police Post, New Thead Harwan under S. 202, Cr. P.C. So there is no misuse of process of the Court, because in case the petitioner has to recover some more amount from the complainant, it was he who should have gone to the civil Court and not taken law into his own hands by taking away the truck from the possession of the complainant, that too during night hours, for which the complaint had rightly been lodged by the person of the respondent/complainant. The report of the concerned police has been submitted before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate is yet to take cognizance in the matter. So application seeking quashment of proceedings under S. 561-A, Cr. P.C. is misconceived and is rejected outrightly.