JYOTI AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners, through the present application, filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. have challenged the order of cognizance dated 13.07.2005, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 188 of 2002 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 347, 418, 420 and 421/ 34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) IT appears that the case was registered on the basis of a complaint, filed on 19.02.2002 by the Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2, and upon conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court below had dismissed the Complaint petition filed by the Complainant by order dated 13.09.2002.

(3.) ASSAILING the impugned order of cognizance and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, Mr. Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the impugned order of cognizance is totally bad in law as well as on facts and has been apparently passed in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind and in fact, only on being persuaded by the order of the Revisional court. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel would first read out the entire contents of the complaint petition and submit that from the jist of the allegations in the complaint petition, it would transpire that the complainant was aggrieved by the fact that though initially the accused persons had got the complainant's vehicle transferred in their name by certain documents executed by the complainant and later, after receiving the consideration money from the complainant, the vehicle was though returned to the complainant but the accused persons had failed and refused to deliver the documents pertaining to the ownership of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid statements are totally false, incorrect and misleading and the complainant has indulged in deliberate suppression of material facts, which would otherwise have confirmed that no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioners. Learned counsel adds further that on an information obtained from the office of the D.T.O. under the Right to Information Act, the petitioners have learnt that the ownership of the vehicle stood transferred in the name of the complainant in the records of the D.T.O. office way back in the year 2001 itself, when admittedly, the vehicle was returned to the complainant by the petitioners upon receipt of the consideration money.