LAXMI KANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.PC has been preferred against the order dated 13.2.95 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Laxmangarh, whereby he took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 379 Penal Code against the accused petitioner.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts are that on the report dated 3.7.94 of respondent Babu Lal, Crime No. 142/94 was registered at Police Station Laxmangarh. In the FIR it was inter-alia alleged that the bus bearing No. DEP 6586 belong to one Hukam Chand, who has appointed the informant-Babu Lal as his power of attorney holder, who in turn was plying the said vehicle, that the said bus was parked in his nohra situated in Laxmangarh that in the evening of 28.6.94 Laxmi Kant (Petitioner) came to his house and asked whether he wanted to sell the said bus, that he showed willingness to sell the bus and that thereupon Laxmi Kant on the pretext of taking trial of the said Bus took it away and did not return the same till 8.00 p.m. It was further" alleged that Babu Lal went to Village Maujpur where Laxmi Kan resided and enquire from him about the bus and he informed that the said bus was lying at Mala Kheda. It as further mentioned in the FIR that on 29th June, 94, Babu Lal went to Mala Kheda to bring back the said vehicle but he was not allowed to do so. Babu Lal further mentioned that he did not know that names of those persons in whose possession the said Bus was lying. The Investigation Officer took possession of the said Bus on 4.7.94 from the possession of one, Jagdish son of Moolchand resident of Mala Kheda and prepared the Seizure Memo, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the said bus was not in a fit condition to be driven. After investigation the police submitted a final report on the ground that the matter pertains to a dispute of Civil nature and that no offence under section 379 Penal Code was made out. Babulal submitted a protest petition before the learned Magistrate. The petitioner also filed as application for affording him an opportunity of hearing. The learned Magistrate after hearing the parties took cognizance for the offence under section 379 Penal Code and ordered for issuance of bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 1000.00 to ensure the attendance of the petitioner in this behalf. Hence this petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned PP and the learned advocate for respondent Babu Lal and carefully perused the record of the lower court. A perusal of evidence collected by the Investigation Officer reveals that Jukum Chand is the registered owner of the said bus, and that he executed a power of attorney on 24.6.92 in respect of the said bus in favour of the informant Babu Lal. However, he did not authorised Babulal to sell the said vehicle on his behalf. From the evidence collected by the Investigation Officer it does not transpire that the petitioner Laxmi Kant had dis-honestly taken possession of the said bus from the possession of Babu Lal on the pretext that he was purchasing the said vehicle because in the Seizure Memo dated 4.7.94 it has been clearly mentioned that the said bus was not in a fit condition to be driven. The bus was also not recovered from the possession of accused petitioner Laxmi Kant. On the other hand various witnesses in their police statements have stated that there was an un-signed agreement between the parties for the alleged sale of the bus for an amount of Rs. 2,80,000.00 and against which a part payment was also made. However, there is neither any signed receipt of the amount available nor the alleged agreement has been signed. In such circumstances, the Investigation Officer rightly submitted the final report on the ground that there was a dispute of civil nature between the parties.