BABUL NATH SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the entire criminal proceeding along with the order taking cognizance dated 12.7.2000 for the offence under Section 406/420, IPC in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No. 32 of 2000 corresponding to G.R. No. 806 of 2000.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to this application is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint case which has sent to the police for registration under Section 156(3), Cr PC and it was lodged that the accused approached the complainant for purchase of the truck bearing registration No. BHT 7122 and the accused purchased the said truck for a sum of Rs. 96,001/ - and he paid a sum of Rs. 76001/ - and look possession of the truck on 12.11.1997 with a promise to pay the rest amount of Rs. 35,000/ - and obtained the papers and get the name transferred. It was also agreed upon that the petitioner will be liable to pay the tax, insurance etc. and liable for all responsibility from 12.11.1997 onward but the accused did not pay the rest amount as agreed upon rather when the complainant approached for payment, he was assaulted by the accused and also refused to pay the tax in connection with the truck in question. The first information report was lodged accordingly and after investigation the police submitted charge -sheet.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted at the very outset that since the complaint case No. 75 of 1999 is still pending, as such this G.R. Case in which the cognizance was taken is mala fide and cannot proceed. It is also submitted that the complainant/Opposite party No. 2 is in habit of filing the criminal cases against the petitioner. It is also argued that in the complaint case No. 75 of 1999 the Court below took cognizance for the offence under Section 506/323, IPC and against the order dated 23.3.1999 taking cognizance in the said complaint case, the opposite party No. 2 moved before the Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Cr. Revision No. 51 of 1999 and the said Criminal Revision is still pending. It is further argued that the entire amount for the truck in question was paid to the opposite party No. 2 but till date he has not transferred the name in favour of the petitioner.