PAWAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 06.12.2013 passed by Special Judge, S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bikaner (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) in Revision Petition No. 74/2013 (283/2011), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 11.08.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) has been dismissed. Vide order dated 11.08.2011, the trial court has rejected the FR No. 161/2009 in FIR No. 164/2009 pertaining to Police Station, Beechhwal, District Bikaner and accepted the protest petition filed by the respondent No. 2 and has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 323, 341, 506 IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint in the trial court on 29.08.2009 while alleging that he along with his friend Trilok Singh reached a petrol pump viz. Sanjay City Filling Company situated at N.H. 15 in front of Urmool Dairy Plant, Sri Ganganagar Road, Bikaner at about 7:30 P.M. on 25.08.2009 and asked the salesman of the said petrol pump to fill the tank of his motorcycle. On his asking, the salesman filled the petrol in the tank of the motorcycle and asked him to make payment of Rs. 966.80 and handed over a bill of the said amount. The complainant had thereafter paid Rs. 967/ - to the salesman but suddenly he realised that the petrol tank of the motorcycle is of 15 litres, whereas the salesman has charged money of 20 liters of petrol and when he drew attention of the salesman towards the fact that how he filled 20 litres of petrol, whereas the capacity of petrol tank of his motorcycle is 15 litres, suddenly one grey haired man came out from the office of the petrol pump, shouted upon the complainant and his friend, abused them and told them that he is a higher officer of Sales Tax Department and this petrol pump belongs to him. He further instructed the salesmen to dispel the complainant from the petrol pump. It is further alleged in the complainant that when the complainant asked them that he would complaint about the discrepancies of the petrol pump, suddenly, Kundan Mal Bohra caught hold of his neck and started buffeting with him, and other persons also did the same thing with him. Other customers of the petrol pump rescued them, then the accused -persons had threatened them with dire consequences and also told them that the police will also not take action against them and then the complainant being feared went away from the petrol pump. It is alleged that when the complainant went to the police station, the police did not register the FIR and, therefore, this complaint was lodged.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that the trial court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order without taking into consideration the conclusion of the negative final report. It is contended that for the same incident, a complaint was made to the Officers of the Petroleum Company, upon which the Officers of the Petroleum Company have got the dispensing unit of the petrol pump checked by the Service Engineer of manufacturing company of the dispensing unit and in that inspection, it was found that the dispensing unit was delivering correct quantity of petrol. It is also contended that the trial court has disbelieved the said report without any reason and simply observed that the said report is doubtful. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the trial court has failed to clarify as to how the said report is doubtful. It is also contended that the trial court has grossly erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under section 420 IPC as the offence of cheating has not been made out. It is further contended that there is no allegation against the accused -persons that they have deceived the complainant or induced him fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property. It is also contended that the complainant on his own went to the petrol pump for buying petrol and the accused -persons have not induced the complainant by fraudulent or dishonest means to come to his petrol pump. It is further contended that it is usual practice on the petrol pumps that the regular customers buy the fuel on credit and get one bill of two or three transactions by making joint payment of two and three transactions. It is also contended that the police, after thorough investigation, has concluded that earlier, the complainant bought 10 litres of petrol on credit and later on again, he purchased 10 litres of petrol on the day of incident and paid the amount of 20 liters of petrol and received the bill of 20 litres of petrol, however, the trial court has disbelieved the said conclusion of the police merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures while observing that the accused -persons have failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that on earlier occasion, 10 litres of petrol was given to the complainant on credit. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court has erred in dismissing the negative final report submitted by the police and also erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 420, 109, 323, 341, 506, 147 IPC. It is further contended that the revisional court has also not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners in a mechanical manner. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed that this criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below may be set aside.