MRITUNJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel for the Private Respondent. This revision application has been filed against the order dated 26.7.2010 in G.R. Case No. 516 of 2008/Trial No. 759 of 2010, arising out of Gomia P.S., Case No. 68 of 2008, by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners for discharge, has been rejected.

(2.) It appears that a FIR was lodged against the petitioners which was registered as Gomia P.S. Case No. 68 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. No. 518 of 2008, by the O.P. No. 2 Sanjeev Kumar, wherein there is allegation that two trucks were financed to the petitioners on the basis of hire-purchase and though thereafter some instalments were given to the financier, but according to the F.I.R., Rs. 2,84,100/- was due against the petitioners, which included the principal as well as the interest, whereas the hire-purchase agreement had' already expired on 30.8.2005 and on 15.2.2005. It has also alleged that both the trucks were made to disappear by the petitioners and accordingly the FIR was lodged against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It further appears that after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioners and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offence under the aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned ACJM, Bermo at Tenughat and the case was transferred to the Court of learned SDJM, Dhanbad for disposal, where the application for discharge was filed by the petitioners. The Court below has taken into consideration the material brought on record during investigation and has come to the conclusion that there was sufficient material for framing the charge against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C. and has rejected the petition for discharge.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has been submitted that the FIR clearly shows the period of the hire-purchase agreement had already expired and the case is purely civil in nature. Learned counsel also submitted that though there is allegation against the petitioners to have made trucks to disappear, but in fact the financier himself had taken away the trucks and this fact has been stated in paragraph-12 of the Revision Application. Learned counsel accordingly submitted that no offence is made out against the petitioners. Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned order is not in consonance with Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. and it is a fit case in which the petitioners ought to have been discharged.