KANHAIYA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This miscellaneous petition is directed against the order dated March 13, 1989, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Suratgarh, framing the charge Under Section 406, I.P.C. against the petitioner.

(2.) Gopi Ram, complainant, filed a complaint Under Section 420, I.P.C. against the petitioner Kanhaiya Lal, alleging therein that one truck, bearing No. RJF 3659 was the joint property of Kanhaiya Lal and one Hanuman Prasad and on June 12, 1979, the complainant made a contribution of Rs. 12,636/-and became the owner of 1/3 share in the truck. On June 13, 1980, accused Kanhaiya Lal took Rs. 20,000/- form the complainant and executed a pronote in his favour. At that time, it was, also, agreed that till the accused makes the payment of this amount, be will, not take the share in the income of the truck. It was further agreed that till the accused makes the payment of the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, he will have no right to sell the truck. An endorsement to this effect was, also, made on the back of the pronote. It was further averred in the complaint that since the truck was at Suratgarh and was being used for the transportation of goods and the complainant was residing in village Kishangarh, the truck was being kept under the care and supervision of the accused Kanhaiya Lal. It was further alleged in the complaint that on July 17, 1980, when the complainant came to Suratgarh and made inquiry from him that the truck had taken the goods to Rawatsar and would return within a day or two, but on July 23, 1980, he was informed by the other co-owner Hanuman Prasad that the accused Kanhaiya Lal had sold the truck to Lakhotiyas of Rawatsar. It was, therefore, prayed that the accused has committed an offence Under Section 420, I.P.C. and a proper action may be taken against the accused and he may be adequately punished. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh, sent this complaint to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Suratgarh, Under Section 156 Cr. P.C. for investigation. A First Information Report, on the basis of this complaint, was recorded at the Police Station, Suratgarh, and the Police, after necessary investigation, presented the challan Under Section 420, I.P.C. against the accused. The learned Magistrate, after considering the papers produced before him, took cognizance against the petitioner Under Section 420, I.P.C. and issued process. The learned Magistrate, thereafter, on August 20, 1981, framed charges Under Section 420, I.P.C. against the petitioner. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Magistrate framing the charge against the accused-petitioner, the accused Kanhaiya Lal preferred a revision petition, which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, who dismissed the same by his order dated November 19, 1981. Aggrieved with the order dismissing the revision petition, the petitioner preferred a petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court, which was ultimately allowed and the charge Under Section 420, I.P.C. was quashed. The Miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court. While remanding the case, this Court observed that the question as to whether an offence Under Section 406, I.P.C. is made-out against the petitioner on the basis of the papers which have been filed alongwith the charge but have not been considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate. It will be open to the learned Magistrate to consider the said question as to whether the offence Under Section 406, I.P.C. or any other offence is disclosed against the petitioner. After the remand of the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, by his order dated July 2, 1984, framed charge Under Section 406, I.P.C. against the accused. Dissatisfied with the order framing the charge Under Section 406, I.P.C, the petitioner preferred a revision-petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Suratgarh, who, by his order dated August 13, 1985, allowed the revision-petition filed by the petitioner and remanded the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate to proceed-with in accordance with the directions given by the High Court in its order dated July 30, 1982. The learned Judicial Magistrate, thereafter, by his order dated March 15, 1989, again framed a charge Under Section 406, I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner. It is against this order that the present petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent.