PEERDAN SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of filing the present miscellaneous petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Succinctly stated facts of the present case are that the petitioner was engaged in the business of transport and used to provide freight services to respondent No. 3 for the transportation of Marble Blocks from Rajsamand to Kishangarh, etc. The petitioner had filed a complaint under Sec. 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR No. 182/2016 at Police Station Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 406, 468, 469, 471 and 120-B of IPC alleging inter alia that as a routine market custom, in exchange of associating the trucks of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 had taken 21 blank cheques from the petitioner as security, with a promise to return the same when the trucks would be detached. It has further been averred in the complaint that the relations between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 started turning strained when the petitioner objected the constant overloading demands of the respondent No. 3. In order to harass the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 suddenly without any notice, detached all the trucks of the petitioner and ousted him from the dealing of the company which caused him huge financial losses. The plight of the petitioner was further worsened as six trucks belonging to the petitioner were declared as unattended and as a result, the same were confiscated by the concerned police authorities. Further, respondent No. 2 in connivance with respondent No. 3 presented one of the cheques, bearing No. 764838 for encashment which was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. As a result of which, a criminal case was initiated by the respondent No. 2 by way of filing a complaint under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act in the year 2009 which was later on withdrawn as not pressed.

(3.) The Investigating Agency, after conducting a thorough investigation in the matter filed a negative final report before the competent Criminal Court. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a protest petition before the concerned Magistrate however, the same was also dismissed vide order dtd. 5/5/2017.