HARI PRAKASH AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sec. 482. Cr. P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate dated 13th April, 1988 taking cognizance of the offence under Sec. 420/34 Penal Code by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Ramganj Mandi.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 24th Feb., 1988 a report was lodged by one Ravi Kumar alleging that he is running a shop in the name of Ravi Studio and Electronics in Ramganj Mandi and is carrying on the business of selling television sets also. His allegation is that accused Om Prakash came to his shop on 21st Jan., 1988 and expressed his desire to purchased a television. He selected one television set make 'Crown which was costing Rs. 3.800.00. He wanted to take it on credit which was refused to him Thereafter, it is said that he wanted the same to be taken on approval Therefore, he gave the television set to him on approval On the same day his brother Hari Prakash, Advocate came to him and told him that his brother wants a bill of the television set and that on receipt of the bill the amount would be sent immediately. He, therefore, relying on him, gave a bill also and waited for him to come, but he d d not come. He made repeated requests to the accused but they neither returned the television nor made the payment rather refused to do either and as a consequence of which he filed this report on which Police Station, Ramganj Mandi registered a case for offences under Sec. 406 and 420 I.P.C. This case was registered initially only against Om Prakash After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Ramganj Mandi against Om Prakash and also his brother Hari Prakash, Advocate for offences order Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and it is against that order that this, petition has been filed praying t the order of taking cognizance is an abuse of process of the Court and the e may be quashed.

(3.) Since this Court was, prima facie, satisfied with the arguments at the admission state recorded the following order:-