ABDUL AZIZ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions have been filed against the order dated August 12, 1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal revision No. 119/1988, as well as, against the order dated October 18, 1984 of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in criminal case No. 139/84 (140/83) by which he has taken cognizance against the petitioner Abdul Aziz under Section 411 IPC and against the petitioner Kayyum Khan under Section 120 B IPC. By the same order the learned Magistrate declined to take cognizance against the accused person under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. The learned Magistrate has also taken cognizance against Hari Narain under Sec. 406 IPC and under Sec. 120 IPC and against Balram under Sec. 120b IPC. Aggrieved against the said order Abdul Aziz & Kayyum Khan have filed separate petitions challenging the order taking cognizance against them. After being unsuccessful in the revision filed by them. Hari Narain and Balram have not come to challenge the said order. The dispute relates to an ambassador car bearing No. MMS 1123. There is no dispute that the complainant S. D. Sharma was the registered owner of the said car. The facts of the case are that the complainant S. D. Sharma had filed a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 14, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 11- 08-1982 and the same was forwarded to Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. On the basis of the said complaint crime No. 243/82 was registered at the aforesaid Police Station on 16-08-1982 under Sections 406, 467 and 468 IPC. The case of the complainant, as described in the said report/complaint is that the complainant knew one Ram Lal and through Ram Lal he came in contact with the co-accused Hari Narain on 01-09-1982.

(2.) ON 10-10-1981 Hari Narain and his brother Ram Lal met him near the Secreteriat at Jaipur when the complainant was in his ambassador car bearing registration No. MMS 1123. At that time Hari Narain asked the complainant to give his aforesaid car as he needed the same in a marriage at his village. It is alleged that Ram Lal was also present in the car and he asured the complainant and also stood as a guarantor for the return of the car. It is further alleged that thereafter the car was handed over by the complainant to Hari Narain on the same date i. e. 10-10-1981 on the assurance that the said car shall be returned after a week. However, the said car was not returned by Hari Narain as per the assurance. It was also stated in the complaint that Hari Narain was called by the complainant for several times from his village but he did not return. It was also given out that the complainant himself went to the house of Hari Narain on asking by Ram Lal but Hari Narain was not available at his house. His brother Balram who is also a co-accused in this case used to meet, who used to give false information that Hari Narain was not in the village. However, no action was taken by the complainant and it is alleged that on August 10, 1982 Sualal and Subhash came to the house of the complainant and intimated him that they have seen his car in Green Motor Works at Sikar. ON this information the complainant rushed to Sikar and found the said car in front of the aforesaid Work Shop. The accused-petitioner Kayyum Khan met him there who claimed himself as the partner of Green Motor Works and on enquiry about the car he informed that the said car was purchased by his brother from Nirlesh Kumar. It is pertinent to mention here that Hari Narain is also named as Nirlesh Kumar. It was also stated in the said complaint that Hari Narain had illegally sold the car for which he had no right. It was also stated in the complaint that the complainant asked Kayyum Khan to hand over the said car to him but he refused, inspite of the threat to him that a report shall be lodged by him.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners straneously argued before me that the car in question was sold by the complainant to Hari Narain and it appears that there was some dispute about the payment of price on account of which the criminal case was instituted to put pressure. It was further submitted that in the entire affair, one Ram Lal was the main figure but strangely neither the complainant had made Ram Lal as a co-accused nor he was examined as a witness. It was also argued that the local police as well as the CID had investigated the matter thoroughly and after investigation it transpired that the complainant had sold the car to Hari Narain and he had issued a sale letter duly signed by him and thereafter Hari Narain sold the car to the petitioner Abdul Aziz and that on the basis of the said sale letter Abdul Aziz got his name registered under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. THE learned counsel further argued that in the statement no attempt has been made by the complainant to challenge the said sale letter and no witness has been examined in this connection and the trial Magistrate has also declined to take cognizance against the accused persons under Sections 406, 467 and 468 IPC. THE learned counsel also argued that this Court had also prima facie found that the petitioner Abdul Aziz is a bonafide purchaser and the car in question has been handed over in his custody. For Kayyum Khan the learned counsel argued that there is no iota of evidence against him except that he is a partner of Green Motor Works and he was present when the car was seized. Besides this, there is no other evidence to make out any case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120 B IPC against him.