KAYHAIYA LAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Section 432 Cr. P.C., the accused -petitioner Kanhaiya Lal has prayed that the order dated 20th August, -1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh in Criminal Case No. 431/80 as well as the order dated 19th November, 1981 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghahagar camp at Suratgarh be quashed. By order dated 20th August, 1981, the Judicial Magistrate has framed a charge under Section 420 I.P.C. against the petitioner and by the order dated 19th November, 1981, the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 20th August, 1981 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh.

(2.) ON 25th July, 1980, Gopi Ram complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that one truck bearing registration no RJF 8659 was the joint property of the petitioner and one Hanuman Prasad and that on 12th June, 1979, the complainant, byrd contributing a sum of Rs. 12.636/ -, became a co -owner to the extent of 1/3 share in the said truck, along with the petitioner and Hanuman Prasad. In the said complaint, it was further stated that on 13th June, 1980, the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - from the complainant and executed a pronote in favour of the complainant and that at the time of the execution of the pronote, it was orally agreed between the parties that till the petitioner repaid the aforesaid amount of loan, he would not take his share of the income from the truck and that it was also agreed that so long as the said amount was not repaid, the petitioner would have no right to sell the truck and that the aforesaid agreement was also recorded on the back of the pronote. In the complaint aforesaid, the complainant further alleged that since the truck was at Suratgarh and was being used for the transport of goods and the complaint was residing in village Kishanpura, the truck was being kept under the care and supervision of the petitioner. In the said complaint, it was further alleged that on 17th June, 1980, the complainant came to Suratgarh and made enquiries about the truck and he was informed by the petitioner that the truck had gone with certain goods to Rawatsar and would return in a day or two. According to the complaint, on 23rd July, 1980, Hanuman Prasad, another co -owner of the truck, came to the village of the complainant and informed the complainant that a fraud had been parctised upon him and that the petitioner had sold the truck to Lahotias of Rawatsar. There upon, the complaintant asked the petitioner and he admitted that he had sold the truck and told the complainant to do whatever he liked and when the complainant asked the petitioner to return his share of the money, he refused to pay the same. In the said complaint, it was further alleged that on 24th July, 1980, the complainant went to police station, Suratgrah to lodge the report but the police authorities did not register the report on the ground that the matter was of a technical nature and that the complainant should obtain a direction from the court. In the said complaint, it was also alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently sold the truck and had retained the share of the complainant in the said truck and that the aforesaid offence committed by the petitioner was punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. and that the petitioner should be punised of the said offence.

(3.) THE Judicial Magistrate by his Older dated 25th July, 1980 for warded the said complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the S.H.O., P.S. Suratgarh and thereupon a case under Section 420 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner at P.S. Suratgarh on 1st August, 1980. After completing the investigation, the police submitted the charge -sheet in respect of offence under Section 420 LP C. against the petitioner in the court of Munsif and Judl. Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh on 6th October, 1980. After taking into consideration the papers that were submitted by the police along with the charge -sheet, the Judl. Magistrate passed the order dated 29th August, 1981 wherein he observed that from the papers filed along with the charge sheet, it appeared that the complainant has become co -sharer to the extent of one third share in truck no. RJF 8659 on payment of Rs. 12,636/ - on 12th June, 1979 and that on 13th June, 1980, the petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/ - from the complainant on the express condition mentioned on the back of the pronote that till the aforesaid amount was repaid, the petitioner would not sell truck no. RJF 8659 but inspite of that the petitioner had sold the truck very soon on 18th July, 1980. The Judicial Magistrate was of the view that the aforesaid action of the petitioner falls within the ambit of illustration (g) of Section 415 I.P.C. and he, therefore, directed that, a charge under Section 420 I.P.C. be framed againt the petitioner.