DEBASHISH MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the Deoghar Town P.S. Case No. 96/2010 which was registered on 15.3.10, arising out of P.C.A. Case No. 133/2010, by which the petitioners were alleged to have committed offence under Sections 379/384/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further requested for quashment of the entire criminal proceedings of the petitioners arising out of the said case.

(2.) THE complainant filed P.C.R. Case No. 133/2010 before the C.J.M., Deoghar narrating, inter alia, that he had purchased Earth - Mover J.D. 3155 model of TAT A Company with the financial assistance from TATA Motors Finance in the month of July, 2007 and the vehicle was registered vide Registration No. JH -15 -D -3504. The complainant further narrated that he had to pay back the dues to the TATA Motors Finance in thirty -six equal installments in three years with the condition that TATA Company would remove technical defects if cropped up during one year of warranty period since the date of purchase, with the arbitration clause in the 'Irrevocable Power of Attorney'. The complainant alleged that immediately after purchase, the Earth Mover developed some technical problem, which was duly intimated to both the manufacturer as well as the Finance Company and for the manufacturing defects he had to face problems in making payment of installments towards the loan advanced by the TATA Motors Finance, but the TATA Company failed to repair the Earth Mover and for that, he had to spend a lot to get it repaired and that he paid Rs.13,00,000/ - (Rupees thirteen lakhs) approximately to TATA Motors Finance against the loan advanced to him. It was specifically alleged that on 20.2.2010, the petitioners came to him and wanted to take away the Earth Mover for repair, to which the complainant insisted to accompany them, but all the three returned back and later on came and took away his vehicle (Earth Mover) forcibly in his absence, which he could learn in the night when he returned back to his home. On the next day, he was informed by the cleaner of the Earth Mover that it was taken away by the petitioners, thereby he was deprived of Earth Mover, which he had legally' purchased. When the complainant contacted the petitioners, he was apprised that he would get back his Earth Mover only upon payment of the entire dues of the loan amount of Earth Mover advanced to him. Thereafter, he filed a complaint for the alleged offence under Sections 379/384/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the C.J.M., Deoghar forwarded the complaint petition for institution of the police case under Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) HEARD Mr. Satyaprakash Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, the learned counsel for the opposite party NO.2.